1

Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories

Date: Issued on April 12, 2013. These guidelines apply to all § 319-funded grant activities 

beginning in fiscal year 2014.

Addresses: Persons requesting additional information should contact Nancy Yoshikawa at (202) 

566-3012; yoshikawa.nancy@epa.gov; or U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503T), 1200 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. The complete text of today's guidelines is 

also available at EPA's Nonpoint Source website: www.epa.gov/nps/319.

Preface

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing revised guidelines to states, 

territories, and the District of Columbia (hereinafter referred to as “states”) for the award of 

§ 319 grants under the Clean Water Act for the implementation of nonpoint source (NPS) 

management programs. These guidelines are requirements that apply to recipients of grants made 

with funds appropriated by Congress under § 319 of the Clean Water Act. States and EPA 

regions will implement these guidelines in fiscal year 2014 and in subsequent years. The new 

guidelines replace the Nonpoint Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and 

Territories that have been in effect since the fiscal year 2004 grant cycle (hereinafter referred to 

as the “2004 guidelines”). These revised guidelines provide updated program direction, an 

increased emphasis on watershed project implementation in watersheds with impaired1 waters, 

and increased accountability measures. These guidelines also emphasize the importance of states 

updating their NPS management programs to ensure that § 319 funds are targeted to the highest 

priority activities. These guidelines are not directed to tribal NPS management programs. Given 

the differing statutory provisions and approaches applicable to tribal programs, EPA implements 

separate NPS guidelines for tribes.

These guidelines were developed following a process that included state and EPA workgroups, 

national meetings, stakeholder outreach, and a 5-week public comment period. Nearly 80 

comment submittals were received from a diverse set of individuals and organizations. EPA 

finalized these guidelines after considering all of the comments received.

In fiscal year 2003, the total annual appropriation for the § 319 program was $238.5 million. The 

2004 guidelines set-aside $100 million of the total appropriation to be used mostly for 

implementation of nine-element watershed-based plans (WBPs) that address NPS impairments in 

watersheds that contain impaired waters. The 2004 guidelines referred to this $100 million set 

aside as “incremental” funds. The § 319 appropriation decreased to $165 million in fiscal year 

2012 and the $100 million “incremental” set aside no longer represents a reasonable balance in 

the allocation of NPS management funds, given the wide variety of important uses to which 

 

1

For the purposes of these guidelines, impaired waters are those waters not meeting water quality standards 

established under § 303 of the Clean Water Act, including numeric criteria, narrative criteria, waterbody uses, and 

antidegradation requirements.
2

states put these funds to control NPS pollution. These new guidelines recognize annual 

variability in appropriations for the § 319 program, and require a revised set aside of at least 50 

percent of a state’s allocation for watershed projects to provide an appropriate balance between 

implementation of WBPs and other important planning, assessment, management, and statewide 

NPS programs and projects. This 50 percent set aside is referred to as watershed project funds. 

The remaining funds are referred to as NPS program funds. 

In addition to the revised watershed project set aside, other significant changes in these revised 

guidelines include:

The 2004 guidelines allowed states to use a portion (up to 20%) of their “incremental” 

funds for the purposes of developing WBPs and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). In 

an effort to increase the focus of § 319 funding on watershed project implementation, 

these revised guidelines remove this allowance and require planning activities to be 

funded with NPS program funds. 

The guidelines continue to place a strong emphasis on taking a watershed-based approach 

to restore NPS-impaired waters. States will focus watershed project funds primarily on

these efforts. Following consultation with EPA, a limited amount of watershed project 

funds may also be used for projects to protect unimpaired/high quality waters when 

protection is cited as a priority in the state’s updated NPS management program. 

Procedural requirements from the 2004 guidelines for protection projects have been 

removed. 

The guidelines include a renewed focus on updating state NPS management programs on 

a five year basis, with the expectation that 50% of NPS management programs will be 

updated by September 2013, and all management programs will be up-to-date by

September 2014.

To facilitate program efficiency and watershed implementation, the guidelines include 

specific requirements for supplemental information to be submitted with TMDLs 

developed using § 319 funds.

The guidelines provide an increased emphasis on coordination with USDA Farm Bill 

programs as a way to leverage water quality investments.

The 20% “base” funds cap on the use of § 319 funds for statewide NPS monitoring and 

assessment from the 2004 guidelines has been removed in recognition of the importance 

of these activities for measuring success and in targeting watershed restoration and 

protection efforts. 

For states that go well beyond an expected level of non-federal funds leveraging, the 

revised guidelines provide an incentive to use the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

(CWSRF) and other state or local funding for NPS watershed projects by providing 

additional flexibility with § 319 funds when states provide funding for watershed projects 

equal to their total § 319 allocation.

Sections I-VIII and X-XIII of the guidelines provide important programmatic information, 

expectations and context for the § 319 program. Section IX describes key requirements that 

states must address in their § 319 NPS program and grants.

NPS pollution continues to dominate water quality impairments in the nation, and although NPS 

control funding needs far exceed the resources appropriated under § 319, states are creatively 
3

addressing NPS pollution by leveraging other federal and state resources, supporting networks of 

community-based actions on a watershed scale, and developing statewide regulatory and nonregulatory programs. As a result, the nation is experiencing positive results in terms of both onthe-ground action and actual water quality improvements. Examples of these improvements are 

summarized in § 319 success stories, found at www.epa.gov/nps/success. Most of these 

successes are the direct result of state NPS agencies' cooperation with other governmental 

agencies, private sector interests, and citizen groups at the state and watershed level. EPA and 

the states continue to improve coordination with USDA Farm Bill conservation programs, and 

we expect these programs will continue to yield substantial water quality improvements in the 

future.

EPA looks forward to continuing to work with the states and other partners to implement an 

effective and successful NPS program.
4

Table of Contents

I. § 319 Nonpoint Source Program Goals....................................................................................... 7

II. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7

A. Statutory Background........................................................................................................... 7

B. The Role of § 319 Grants..................................................................................................... 8

C. Scope of These Guidelines................................................................................................... 8

D. Relationship to Other State and Federal Programs .............................................................. 9

i. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).......................................................... 9

ii. § 303(d) Listing and TMDL Program............................................................................ 11

iii. State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs.......................................................................... 12

iv. Other State and Federal Programs ................................................................................. 13

III. Nonpoint Source Management Programs............................................................................... 14

A. Background ........................................................................................................................ 14

B. Renewed Focus on Up-to-Date State Programs................................................................. 15

C. Priority Setting and Targeting of § 319 Funds................................................................... 15

IV. Balance of Restoration and Protection Activities................................................................... 16

V. Watershed-based Planning....................................................................................................... 18

A. EPA’s Continued Emphasis on Nine-Element Watershed-based Plans (WBPs)............... 18

B. Balance Between Planning and Implementation................................................................ 20

C. Integration of Watershed-based Plans and TMDLs ........................................................... 20

D. Role of EPA Regions in Watershed-based Plan Review ................................................... 20

VI. Measuring and Tracking Our Progress................................................................................... 22

VII. Annual Performance and Progress Determinations............................................................... 23

VIII. § 319 Funding Information .................................................................................................. 23

A. Activities Eligible for Funding Under § 319...................................................................... 23

B. Urban Stormwater Runoff.................................................................................................. 24

C. Source Water Protection..................................................................................................... 26

D. CZARA Implementation .................................................................................................... 26

E. NPS Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 26

i. Integration with Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Efforts..................................... 27
5

ii. National NPS Monitoring Program ............................................................................... 27

F. Allocation of Funds............................................................................................................ 28

G. Schedule for Awarding § 319 Grants................................................................................. 28

i. State Project Solicitation and Selection Process............................................................ 28

ii. Process for Awarding § 319 Grants............................................................................... 29

iii. State Expenditure of Awarded Funds............................................................................ 32

H. Relationship to PPGs.......................................................................................................... 32

I. Multi-Year Work Plans...................................................................................................... 33

IX. Grants Guidelines............................................................................................................... 33

A. Use of § 319 Funds............................................................................................................. 33

B. Watershed Project Funds.................................................................................................... 34

i. 50 Percent of Total § 319 Funding for Watershed Project Implementation .................. 34

ii. Alternatives to Nine-Element Watershed-based Plans (WBPs)..................................... 35

iii. Types of Staff Activities Eligible for Watershed Project Funding ................................ 37

C. NPS Program Funds........................................................................................................... 38

D. National Water Quality Initiative ....................................................................................... 38

E. Monitoring Activities......................................................................................................... 39

F. TMDL Development Activities.......................................................................................... 39

G. Exemption from 50 Percent Watershed Project Funding Requirement for Substantial State 

Fund Leveraging................................................................................................................. 40

H. § 319 Grant Work Plan Requirements ............................................................................... 41

I. State NPS Management Program Updates......................................................................... 42

J. CZARA Set Aside .............................................................................................................. 42

K. Reporting Requirements..................................................................................................... 43

i. Background on Reporting Requirements....................................................................... 43

ii. Reporting Procedures and the Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS)........... 43

iii. Annual Reports .............................................................................................................. 45

iv. Grantee Performance Reports........................................................................................ 46

v. Federal Financial Reports.............................................................................................. 46

vi. STORET ........................................................................................................................ 47

vii. Reporting and Record-Keeping for Subgrantees........................................................... 47
6

L. States Must Demonstrate Satisfactory Progress................................................................. 47

M. Obligate Funds Within One Year....................................................................................... 48

N. Non-federal Share 40 Percent or Greater ........................................................................... 48

O. Cost Sharing for Demonstration Projects........................................................................... 49

P. States Must Maintain Level of Effort................................................................................. 49

Q. Cap on Administrative Costs.............................................................................................. 50

X. Management and Oversight of § 319 Grants........................................................................... 50

XI. Grants to Indian Tribes........................................................................................................... 51

XII. Waiver Process...................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix A—Key Components of an Effective State Nonpoint Source Management Program

............................................................................................................................................ 53

Appendix B—Potential Measures and Indicators of Progress and Success ............................. 60

Appendix C—Minimum Elements of a Watershed-based Plan................................................ 63

Appendix D—State-by-State § 319 Allocation......................................................................... 68

Appendix E—Guidance and Checklist for Determining Progress of State NPS Management 

Programs and Performance of CWA Section 319 Grants.................................................. 70

Appendix F-- Nationally Consistent Programmatic § 319 Grant Conditions........................... 74
7

I. § 319 Nonpoint Source Program Goals

The § 319 nonpoint source (NPS) program is an integral component and funding source for state 

NPS management programs which aim to control NPS pollution to achieve and maintain 

beneficial uses of waters. Effective state NPS programs supported by § 319 maintain and 

improve water quality by:

strategically focusing on water quality goals to achieve water quality standards in 

the state’s priority waters/watersheds;

clearly articulating program goals and developing annual work plans that reflect 

actions to advance those goals;

reflecting a balance between planning, staffing, statewide action, and watershed 

project implementation that best utilizes resources to deliver measurable water 

quality results; 

leveraging and integrating with other programs to align planning, priority-setting 

and resources to make the best use of available resources to control NPS 

pollution; and

tracking and reporting results to demonstrate program progress and success.

By supporting the variety of state NPS management programs with an integrated national 

framework, the § 319 program helps address the national water quality challenges posed by NPS 

pollution.

II. Introduction

A. Statutory Background

Congress enacted § 319 of the Clean Water Act in 1987, establishing a national program to 

control nonpoint sources of water pollution. Clean Water Act § 101(a)(7) states, “it is the 

national policy that programs for the control of nonpoint sources of pollution be developed and 

implemented in an expeditious manner so as to enable the goals of this Act to be met through the 

control of both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.”2Funding appropriated under § 319 can 

be used to implement state NPS programs including, as appropriate, non-regulatory or regulatory 

programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, 

technology transfer, and demonstration projects to achieve implementation of best management 

practices and water quality goals.

Under § 319(a), all states have addressed NPS pollution by developing NPS assessment reports 

that identify NPS pollution problems and sources responsible for the water quality impairments. 

Under § 319(b), all states have also adopted state NPS management programs to control NPS 

 

2 NPS pollution is not defined in the Clean Water Act. A brief definition is that NPS pollution includes pollution 

caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and through the ground and carrying natural and human-made 

pollutants into lakes, rivers, streams, wetlands, estuaries, other coastal waters and ground water. Atmospheric 

deposition and hydrologic modification are also sources of nonpoint pollution.
8

pollution. State NPS management programs provide the foundation for state programs to address 

NPS pollution. These programs should articulate each state’s strategy to address nonpoint 

sources and to achieve/maintain water quality standards. Since 1990, Congress has annually 

appropriated grant funds to states under § 319(h) to implement their approved state NPS 

management program.

B. The Role of § 319 Grants

§ 319 grants are important resources available to states to support/assist their NPS programs to 

restore impaired waters and protect unimpaired/high quality waters. These guidelines provide the 

framework for using § 319 funds to achieve the specific goals, objectives, and milestones 

established in a state’s approved NPS management program. 

While § 319 funds are important resources, it remains critical for states to strengthen their NPS 

management programs and to continue to strengthen existing partnerships as well as to develop 

new partnerships to achieve water quality goals. § 319 funds should be considered one 

component of a broad-based strategy to control the wide range of NPS impairments and threats 

affecting our nation’s waters. The effectiveness of state NPS programs will depend on the 

effective use and leveraging of the funds, resources, and authorities of a wide variety of public 

and private sector entities that have a role to play in abating and preventing NPS pollution 

problems.

C. Scope of These Guidelines

These guidelines are primarily directed towards NPS management programs and grants 

administered by state and territorial lead NPS agencies designated under § 319 of the Clean 

Water Act. (Hereinafter “state” refers to states and territories.) Indian tribes that have approved 

NPS assessments and management programs and also have “treatment in a manner similar to a 

state” status may also receive grants under § 319 of the Clean Water Act. Apart from providing a 

brief overview in section XI below, these guidelines are not specifically directed to tribal NPS 

management. Because of differing statutory provisions that apply to tribes, EPA publishes 

separate guidelines for tribal NPS programs and grants at www.epa.gov/nps/tribal.

These guidelines apply to states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories of American 

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the US 

Virgin Islands. § 319 funds for American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands may be managed through the Environmental 

Protection Consolidated Grants for the Insular Areas. This consolidated program support grant is 

an alternative assistance delivery mechanism which allows an agency eligible for assistance for 

two or more pollution control programs to consolidate its assistance requests into a single 

application and receive a single consolidated award (www.cfda.gov/programs/66.600).3

 

3

For more information on the consolidated grants to American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands and Guam, contact EPA Region 9 (www.epa.gov/region09/islands). For more information on the 

consolidated grant to the US Virgin Islands, contact EPA Region 2 (www.epa.gov/aboutepa/states/vi.html).
9

These guidelines establish a nationally-consistent framework for state NPS management 

programs and grants. States and EPA regions will implement these guidelines in fiscal year 2014 

and they will continue to be applied in subsequent years. However, priority work such as 

updating state NPS management programs and working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

on the National Water Quality Initiative will continue in fiscal year 2013. Many states are 

currently updating their state NPS management programs to meet EPA’s goal that 50% of 

programs be updated by September 2013 and all remaining outdated programs be updated by 

September 2014. 

EPA regions may, when necessary, issue supplemental guidance to further advance or support 

the NPS programs of their states, as long as the supplemental guidance comprises an addition or 

complement to the basic requirements of these guidelines. For any such guidance the EPA region 

will consult with the national program manager for the NPS program and obtain concurrence 

prior to issuance.

Sections I-VIII and X-XIII of these guidelines provide important programmatic information, 

expectations, and context on many aspects of the § 319 program. Section IX describes key 

requirements that states must address in their § 319 NPS program and grants.

D. Relationship to Other State and Federal Programs

A wide array of Clean Water Act and non-Clean Water Act programs align with and are 

available to support state efforts to control NPS pollution. Most states take advantage of some or 

all of these programs as they implement their NPS management programs. In some cases these 

programs and their resources can be more effectively leveraged than they have been thus far. 

This section does not attempt to list all such programs but highlights a few that are of particular 

importance and potential in the management of NPS pollution. 

i. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

EPA wants to particularly emphasize the significant benefits of working closely with the United 

States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to achieve our common goals of restoring and 

protecting water quality. This is especially important in light of the 2008 Food, Conservation and 

Energy Act (Farm Bill), which presents tremendous opportunities for leveraging funding and 

other resources to improve water quality affected by agricultural and silvicultural nonpoint 

sources of pollution. Information about partnership opportunities through USDA Farm Bill 

conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) can be found online (www.usda.gov/farmbill and 

nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/programs). Most notably, USDA's EQIP states that 

“reducing NPS pollution, such as nutrients, sediment, pesticides, or excess salinity in impaired 

watersheds consistent with TMDLs where available” is a national priority to guide the allocation 

of resources.

In fiscal year 2014 and subsequent years, EPA, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation 

Service (NRCS), and states will continue to implement the National Water Quality Initiative 

(NWQI) to encourage and facilitate program coordination in selected watersheds nationwide. 
10

The USDA launched the NWQI in fiscal year 2012 with the goal to assist producers in 

addressing high priority water quality concerns in selected watersheds. The intent of the NWQI 

is to invest in a selected priority watershed over multiple years to achieve widespread 

conservation system implementation that will yield accelerated water quality improvements that 

can be sustained into the future. In fiscal years 2012 and 2013 NRCS allocated 5% of EQIP 

general financial assistance funds, approximately $33 million each year, to address agriculturerelated nutrient and sediment impairments in over 150 selected HUC-124 watersheds. The NWQI 

requires state conservationists to consult with state water quality agencies and state technical 

committees when considering watershed selection. A majority of the watersheds selected in 

fiscal year 2012 were recommended by state water quality agencies. In fiscal year 2014 and 

subsequent years of the initiative, EPA and the states will again coordinate with USDA to work 

in priority watersheds to accelerate water quality results. USDA will continue to invest EQIP 

financial assistance funds in priority watersheds and will consult with state water quality 

agencies and state technical committees prior to selecting additional watersheds. Beginning in 

fiscal year 2014, states will devote § 319 or other resources to monitor water quality results in 

selected watersheds where circumstances are aligned for assessing water quality impacts from 

conservation practices. Specific expectations for states are discussed further in section IX.D.

Drawing lessons from EPA’s National NPS Monitoring Program and USDA’s Conservation 

Effects Assessment Project, EPA will provide additional guidance and technical information on 

NWQI monitoring prior to fiscal year 2014, as well as limited technical assistance for interested 

states.

USDA's Farm Bill conservation programs (such as EQIP, CRP, Conservation Stewardship 

Program, and Wetlands Reserve Program) support the implementation of agricultural 

conservation practices as well as a suite of conservation, restoration, and land retirement 

measures for wetlands, riparian areas, and other areas of critical importance to the success of 

water quality improvement efforts. States should build and expand partnerships with the 

agricultural community to support the implementation of WBPs. In most cases, the resources 

needed to implement an entire WBP will be significant, and success will depend on enlisting and 

obtaining the support of all important stakeholders and the resources they can provide, including 

especially, the resources made available by Congress through the Farm Bill.

Where significant EQIP or other Farm Bill resources are available to address sources of NPS 

pollution in critical areas of a watershed, § 319 funding can be used in a number of ways to 

further complement these resources. Examples of complementary activities that can be funded 

with § 319 include: (1) monitoring in-stream water quality to assess project effectiveness and 

track water quality improvements; (2) developing WBPs in watersheds with impaired waters and 

other high priority watersheds to identify critical areas and needed pollutant load reductions; (3) 

funding watershed coordinators and technical assistance providers to work with local 

communities to promote adoption of conservation practices.

In addition to addressing agriculture-based water quality issues, it is important to note that 

USDA Farm Bill conservation programs can be used for non-industrial private forest 

 

4 A hydrologic code or hydrologic unit code (HUC) is a sequence of numbers or letters that identifies a hydrologic

feature like a river, river reach, lake, or area like a drainage basin.
11

landowners, defined as private landowners who own more than 10 acres. In watersheds where 

agriculture is less prevalent, but other land uses threaten water quality, NRCS-funded forest 

management plans and conservation practices are important tools to protect and improve water 

quality.

ii. § 303(d) Listing and TMDL Program

Under § 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states must develop a list of "water quality limited 

segments” still requiring TMDLs. “Water quality limited segments” are segments where it is 

known that water quality does not meet applicable water quality standards, and/or is not expected 

to meet applicable water quality standards, even after the application of the technology-based 

effluent limitations required by § 301(b) and § 306 of the Clean Water Act. States must develop 

TMDLs for waters on the § 303(d) list of impaired or threatened5 waters. The TMDL calculates 

the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality 

standards for that particular pollutant. TMDLs also include wasteload allocations for point 

sources and load allocations for nonpoint sources.

Because implementation of the load allocations established by these TMDLs is not enforceable 

under the Clean Water Act, for waters impaired solely or partly by nonpoint sources, the primary 

implementation mechanism is generally the state NPS management program coupled with state, 

local, and federal land management programs and authorities. Thus, the § 319 program is an 

important mechanism to implement TMDLs and restore the impaired waters listed under 

§ 303(d) where NPS pollution is a contributor to the water quality impairment. EPA believes that 

implementation of these TMDLs can best be achieved through the development of WBPs that 

incorporate information from TMDLs that have been developed in the watershed. The 

implementation of WBPs has been and continues to be one of EPA’s highest priorities for the use 

of § 319 funds.

EPA encourages states to coordinate their Clean Water Act TMDL, § 106, and § 319 programs to 

align priorities and leverage resources available for assessment, planning, and implementation of 

water quality restoration projects. In particular, EPA encourages states to coordinate their efforts 

to develop and implement WBPs with state and EPA efforts to develop and implement TMDLs. 

This is particularly valuable when water quality models for determining TMDLs include the 

ability to run various best management practices (BMP) treatment scenarios. Local watershed 

organizations may both gain a better understanding of modeled watershed processes and 

contribute important local knowledge in the timing and selection of management measures. 

States may benefit from integrating TMDL and WBP development through efficiencies in, for 

example, monitoring costs and expenses associated with contractors, meetings, and outreach. 

This integration may pose a challenge because TMDLs can be developed at varying watershed 

scales or for single segments, while the scope of WBPs often target a planning area at the HUC12 watershed level. Development of TMDLs on a watershed basis can effectively and efficiently 

 

5

States may define “threatened waters” in their assessment and listing methodologies. EPA recommends that states 

consider as threatened those waters that are currently attaining water quality standards, but which are expected to not 

meet water quality standards by the next listing cycle (every two years).
12

address TMDL development commitments as well as facilitate integration with the § 319 

program activities. States are encouraged to use the tools and information provided in EPA’s 

Draft Handbook for Developing Watershed TMDLs to determine the appropriateness of using the 

watershed approach in TMDL development (www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/pdf/draft_handbook.pdf). 

Section IX.F specifies requirements for TMDLs developed with § 319 funding.

iii. State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs

State NPS program managers should and frequently do coordinate their funding needs with other 

Clean Water Act sources of funding. The most significant of these is the Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund (CWSRF) under Title VI of the Clean Water Act. Over the last several years, 

the CWSRF has provided, on average, nearly $275 million annually to control pollution from 

nonpoint sources and for estuary protection. While some states are effectively using CWSRF 

funds for NPS control, most states have not significantly utilized this resource. EPA believes that

the CWSRF is particularly well-suited to assisting in the implementation of NPS projects 

requiring capital investment. States are encouraged to increase their use of these financial 

resources to help implement WBPs and other NPS projects. 

Under the CWSRF, each state develops an annual Intended Use Plan (IUP) subject to public 

review which describes the state’s plan for the use of the CWSRF funding. Typically, IUPs

indicate that a portion of the CWSRF funds will be used for implementing § 319 projects, and 

while not required, in some cases contain a list of the specific NPS activities under § 319 that the 

state expects to fund. State NPS staff should work closely with state CWSRF staff, when 

possible, to include high priority NPS projects from a state’s NPS management program in the 

state’s CWSRF IUP.

States may use CWSRF funding for NPS projects that require capital investment/infrastructure 

improvements and that meet these guidelines for funding under the § 319 program. While state 

rules vary, recipients of CWSRF financial assistance for NPS projects may generally be publiclyowned or privately-owned entities. EPA encourages states to develop creative funding 

mechanisms under the CWSRF for NPS restoration and protection projects (see 

www.epa.gov/watershedwebcasts for an archived version of a Watershed Academy Webcast on 

the use of CWSRF funds for NPS and National Estuary Program projects). 

EPA continues to encourage use of CWSRF funding for NPS projects because projects 

incorporating low impact development are often cost-effective relative to traditional stormwater 

management approaches, and they do a better job of reducing stormwater pollutants and 

protecting stream channel integrity and habitat. Well-planned NPS projects can reduce capital 

needs for stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities. (See Guidance for Federal Land 

Management in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Chapter 3, Urban and Suburban, EPA 841-R10-002, May 12, 2010, water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/chesbay502_urban.cfm.)

When updating their NPS management programs, states should clearly identify their processes to 

use some of the significant resources of the CWSRF loan program for eligible NPS activities. 

Where applicable, the state NPS management program should explain how NPS projects fit into 

the state’s prioritization scheme for CWSRF funding, and describe state efforts to increase the 
13

use of the state CWSRF to address NPS program priorities. If there are barriers to prioritization 

of NPS projects, the state NPS management program should describe efforts to coordinate with 

the CWSRF program and potential future steps to encourage consideration of NPS projects.

In addition to leveraging CWSRF funds for NPS projects, states have increased the use of the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to fund important source water protection 

projects within the scope of their state NPS management programs. State NPS program managers 

should coordinate with their state DWSRF program and explore opportunities to leverage these 

DWSRF funds.

These guidelines provide an incentive for states to use SRF and other state funding for NPS 

activities by providing additional flexibility with the federal § 319 funds for states that provide 

significant amounts of state funding for NPS watershed project activities. (See section IX.G.) 

For more information on the CWSRF program, see water.epa.gov/grants_funding/cwsrf. For 

more information on the DWSRF program, see water.epa.gov/grants_funding/dwsrf. 

iv. Other State and Federal Programs

In addition to USDA Farm Bill programs, EPA’s § 303(d) program and SRF programs, many 

other federal and state programs have goals in common with the § 319 program. States' activities 

to expand and update their state NPS management programs in recent years have strengthened 

links with various federal and state programs. The wide array of ways in which § 319 funds may 

be used to support NPS management activities makes them well-suited to integration and 

coordination with other program funds, especially those limited to a specific set of activities such 

as BMP implementation. Program integration can achieve the coordinated design and 

implementation of water quality-focused programs and projects that employs the resources, 

authorities, and expertise of all relevant programs.

To maximize effectiveness, state NPS management programs need to assure that a wide variety 

of programs continue to be well-integrated and support the implementation of state NPS 

management programs to control NPS pollution. These include:

The state programs implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) point source program, particularly with respect to urban runoff, 

construction and development, and concentrated animal feeding operations;

Coastal nonpoint pollution control programs developed under § 6217 of the Coastal 

Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), which are required by 

CZARA to be implemented through a state’s NPS management program and are 

applicable to coastal states and territories that have programs under the Coastal Zone 

Management Act;

 EPA’s National Estuary Program (NEP), authorized under § 320 of the Clean Water

Act, supports 28 partnership efforts that develop and implement long-term EPAapproved Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans and annual work plans 

to address NPS problems and other estuarine watershed challenges; 
14

Wetlands protection and restoration programs implemented under § 404 of the Clean 

Water Act as well as pursuant to a variety of other federal and state authorities and 

programs;

Source water protection (including ground water) programs and Underground 

Injection Control Class V Well programs under §§ 1421, 1428 and 1453 of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act;

Chesapeake Bay Program (§ 117), Great Lakes Program (§ 118), Long Island Sound 

(§ 119), Lake Champlain (§ 120), Lake Pontchartrain program (§ 121) and the Clean 

Lakes Program (§ 314) of the Clean Water Act; 

Mississippi/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force’s Action Plan; 

Water Quality Management Planning grants funds under Clean Water Act § 604(b) 

and basin planning under § 303(e) of the Clean Water Act;

Efforts supported by Clean Water Act §106 funds to conduct ambient monitoring in 

watersheds where significant NPS implementation is occurring; and

State water quality standards programs which include numeric criteria, narrative 

criteria, waterbody uses, and antidegradation requirements.

In addition to coordinating with these water quality programs, states should coordinate with 

tribal water quality programs and with programs administered by the federal land management 

agencies (e.g., Bureau of Land Management, Forest Service, and National Park Service), water 

management agencies (e.g., Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission, and Tennessee Valley Authority), and other resource management 

agencies. For example, some state § 319 programs work closely with federal agencies to 

encourage development of TMDLs and implementation of NPS BMPs on federal lands.

Finally, two other federal agencies whose policies and practices can greatly influence and/or 

protect riparian areas, wetlands, and other sensitive areas and corridors are the Department of 

Transportation and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Both of these agencies and 

their state counterparts have programs that can help protect or mitigate potential impairment to 

these areas, and both have funding programs that can be used to benefit water quality. EPA 

strongly encourages states to work with these partner agencies to achieve common goals.

III. Nonpoint Source Management Programs

A. Background

Clean Water Act § 319(b), enacted in 1987, required all states to adopt NPS management 

programs. Pursuant to EPA’s 1996 guidance Nine Key Elements of an Effective State Nonpoint 

Source Management Program, each state upgraded its original NPS management program. This 

guidance required states to: identify explicit short- and long-term goals, objectives, and strategies 

to protect and restore water quality; strengthen working partnerships with appropriate state, 

interstate, tribal, regional and local entities, private sector groups, citizens groups, and federal 

agencies; establish balanced approaches that emphasize both statewide programs and on-theground projects to abate existing problems and prevent new ones; and use a periodic feedback 

loop to evaluate progress and make appropriate program revisions.
15

B. Renewed Focus on Up-to-Date State Programs

Although some state NPS management programs have been updated more recently, EPA’s final 

report, A National Evaluation of the Clean Water Act Section 319 Program (November 2011, 

www.epa.gov/nps/pdf/319evaluation.pdf) found that 28 states had not updated their programs 

since 1999-2000. The report found that updating state NPS management programs helps states 

identify strategic priorities, develop goals and milestones, and work more effectively to address 

the evolving state of their waters and engage partners to address statewide NPS priorities.

A key recommendation from the § 319 program reform workgroup was to ensure states have 

updated NPS management programs and that proposed projects/activities in a state’s annual 

§ 319 grant work plan directly relate to the annual milestones in the state’s NPS management 

program. EPA has updated the 1997 document and issued the Key Components of an Effective 

State Nonpoint Source Management Program, available at www.epa.gov/nps/319 and in 

appendix A of these guidelines. This revised document replaces former guidance outlined in the 

1997 document. 

Because of the importance of a current and relevant NPS management program to guide the use 

of § 319 resources, these grant guidelines require states to maintain updated NPS management 

programs. EPA expects 50% of state NPS management programs to be updated by September 

2013 in accordance with the guidance provided in appendix A. In addition, EPA expects that the 

remainder of outdated state NPS management programs will be updated by September 2014. 

States should devote sufficient resources in their annual § 319 grant work plans to complete 

these updates. To keep state NPS management programs relevant, states are required to review 

and update their programs every five years. States that do not maintain current NPS management 

programs risk a determination of unsatisfactory progress under Clean Water Act § 319(h)(8). 

(See section IX.I.) Updates need not be comprehensive, unless warranted by significant program 

changes, but may focus on specific elements that are out-of-date. At a minimum, the update 

should ensure goals, objectives, and annual milestones are current. These state NPS management 

program updates must be reviewed and approved by EPA; their final approval resides with the 

EPA regional water division director.

C. Priority Setting and Targeting of § 319 Funds

State NPS management programs should articulate short and long-term water quality and 

programmatic goals/milestones, as well as the measures of success the state will use to assess 

progress in implementing its program. The NPS managment program update process is necessary 

to ensure implementation of an effective, targeted and relevant approach to address NPS 

pollution. NPS management programs should articulate areas of program focus and include a 

description of the state’s strategy for prioritizing waters and watersheds in which to focus 

restoration and protection efforts. Further guidance on state priority setting in NPS management 

programs is provided in component 5 of appendix A. States should describe how this strategy 

will help them achieve the goals/milestones and measures of success outlined in the NPS 

management program. States may wish to consider a targeted approach (e.g., selecting a subset 

of key watersheds in which to focus § 319 funding each year) when setting priorities for 

watershed project funding.
16

Appendix B provides a list of potential measures and indicators of progress and success that 

states may wish to consider when developing or updating a targeted approach for the state NPS 

management program. 

IV. Balance of Restoration and Protection Activities

NPS pollution continues to dominate water quality impairments throughout the United States. 

The most recent Clean Water Act § 305(b) data estimate that 53% of the nation’s assessed rivers 

and streams, 66% of the nation’s estuaries and bays, and 69% of the nation’s lakes are impaired 

(www.epa.gov/waters/ir). EPA estimates that more than half of the waters identified on states’ 

§ 303(d) list of impaired or threatened waters are impacted primarily by nonpoint sources 

(water.epa.gov/resource_performance/planning/upload/FY13_OW_DraftNPMGdnce.pdf). 

Furthermore, an estimated 94% of the nation’s TMDLs address waters that are either completely 

or partially listed for NPS pollution. (This estimate is captured using Expert Query 

at www.epa.gov/waters/tools.) Since 2002, the majority of § 319 funded projects have been 

targeted to restore NPS impaired waters. These and other efforts by state NPS programs and their 

partners have led to the partial or full restoration of more than 435 NPS impaired waterbodies 

since 2001 (www.epa.gov/nps/success).

Because of the vast and pressing problem of water quality impairments nationwide, and the 

primacy of NPS pollution as a cause of many of these impairments, through these guidelines 

EPA is maintaining the primary focus of § 319 funds on restoring impaired waters to meet water 

quality standards. This includes waters impaired by nonpoint sources and mixed sources and 

waters for which TMDLs have been developed. Under these guidelines, EPA requires that 

watershed project funds go toward restoring impaired waters through the implementation of 

WBPs or acceptable alternative plans. However, where a state has an updated NPS management 

program that identifies protection of unimpaired/high quality waters as a priority and describes 

its process for identifying such waters, there is flexibility to use a limited amount of watershed 

project funds for activities to protect identified waters following consultation with EPA through 

§ 319 grant work plan negotiations. The proportion of § 319 watershed project funds allocated to 

protecting unimpaired/high quality waters could vary depending on the relative priority of 

restoration and protection activities in the state's NPS management program and the array of 

projects ready for § 319 funding and implementation in that particular year. States may also use 

NPS program funds to protect unimpaired/high quality waters.

This approach recognizes that while restoration of NPS-impaired waters remains the primary 

goal of the § 319 program, there are important water quality benefits and potential cost savings6

from protecting high quality waters and preventing impairments in waters that currently meet 

water quality standards but whose condition is declining. 

 

6 EPA has a fact sheet on the economic benefits of protecting healthy watersheds at 

water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/watershed/ecoben_factsheet.cfm.
17

Activities necessary to implement WBPs or acceptable alternative plans for watersheds 

containing one or more impaired waters are considered to be restoration activities under these 

guidelines. As discussed in EPA’s Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and 

Protect our Waters (water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm), EPA expects WBPs to 

focus not only on the impaired segments within the watershed, but when possible, to identify 

currently unimpaired waters where protection and load reduction actions are necessary to ensure 

that high quality waters do not become impaired, and address conditions that may contribute to 

impairments downstream. In many cases, a mix of actions to restore waters and protect 

unimpaired waters may be necessary to comprehensively implement WBPs and successfully 

address NPS pollution. 

Given limited resources, EPA understands that states cannot realistically address the restoration 

and protection of all watersheds in the state. Therefore, these guidelines emphasize the careful 

identification and prioritization of state NPS control activities to achieve the goals and 

milestones outlined in the state’s NPS management program. States may wish to consider the 

following scenarios for prioritizing the protection of unimpaired/high quality waters:

Watersheds or portions of watersheds with unique, valuable, or threatened species or 

critical aquatic habitats of these species;

Waters and watershed areas (including ground waters where appropriate) that serve as 

source water for a public drinking water supply; 

Protection of high quality waters in watersheds that contain some impairments;

Waters near geographic areas where rapid land use development is occurring;

Waters where data trends indicate water quality degradation is occurring;

Restored waters requiring continued water quality assessment and maintenance of 

BMPs to assure unimpaired status;

Outstanding Natural Resource Waters or other state-defined categories of high

quality waters;

Watersheds contributing high nutrient loads to downstream waters.

Regardless of the prioritization method states use, it must be documented in the approved state 

NPS management program. EPA emphasizes that effective planning is always necessary to guide 

successful implementation of watershed restoration and protection projects. Planning 

requirements for projects undertaken with § 319 watershed project funds are outlined below. To 

ensure that EPA can account for the successes of protection efforts under the § 319 program, 

EPA plans to engage states and local partners to further discuss and consider appropriate 

planning frameworks and metrics specifically for watershed projects aimed at protecting 

unimpaired/high quality waters. 
18

V. Watershed-based Planning

A. EPA’s Continued Emphasis on Nine-Element Watershed-based Plans (WBPs)

For many years EPA has focused § 319 resources on watershed-based environmental restoration 

and protection, in which local stakeholders join forces to develop and implement WBPs to 

address NPS pollution based on the particular conditions in their communities. The watershed 

approach is a coordinating framework to organize public and private sector efforts to identify, 

prioritize, and then implement activities to address water-related problems (considering both 

surface and ground water). This approach is commonly characterized by diverse, well-integrated 

partnerships; a specific geographic focus action driven by environmental and public health 

objectives and by strong science and data; and coordinated priority setting and integrated 

solutions. 

Due to the complex and diffuse nature of NPS pollution, the substantial costs to address it, and 

frequent reliance on voluntary action by individual landowners, successfully addressing NPS 

pollution to achieve water quality standards often requires years of support from a coalition of 

stakeholders, programs, and funding sources. Watershed-based planning helps address water 

quality problems in a holistic manner by fully assessing the potential contributing causes and 

sources of pollution, then prioritizing restoration and protection strategies to address these 

problems. In adopting the watershed approach over the past several years, state NPS programs 

have demonstrated their capability to solve NPS pollution problems. Most of the § 319 success 

stories document that multi-year, watershed-wide collaborations were required to deliver 

success.

Over the last several years states’ success in restoring NPS-impaired waters through 

implementation of watershed-based efforts has demonstrated the critical role of watershed 

planning in effectively guiding NPS pollution control efforts. Additionally, a number of 

watershed assessment studies, such as USDA’s Conservation Effects Assessment Project 

(CEAP), demonstrate the importance of sound planning to effectively guide project 

implementation. Between 2004 and 2011, USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

(NIFA) and NRCS jointly funded 13 projects to evaluate the effects of conservation practices on 

trends in water quality at the watershed scale. Findings from these NIFA-CEAP Watershed 

Assessment Studies demonstrated that more effective water quality outcomes are achieved when 

partners assess and plan conservation practice implementation at the watershed scale (in addition 

to the field or farm scale). 

These studies found that planning at the watershed scale is needed to provide a comprehensive 

analysis of the causes and sources of pollution and to identify critical areas (i.e., those that 

generate the most pollution) in which to give priority to conservation practice implementation. In 

addition to selecting and applying practices that will be effective in addressing the pollutants of 

concern, conservation practice implementation was dependent on local willingness to adopt and 

maintain these practices.7The watershed-based planning approach can identify possible 

 

7 A summary of key findings from USDA’s CEAP Competitive Grant Watershed Studies Synthesis Report is 

available here: www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/technical/nra/ceap/?cid=stelprdb1047821
19

implementation activities to address a water quality problem, and then prioritize these activities 

based on their relative contributions to NPS pollutant loads and the likelihood that they will be 

adopted and maintained by local partners.

National experience indicates that WBPs containing the nine elements identified in EPA’s 

Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters

(water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm) and in appendix C of these guidelines,

provide an effective, integrated approach to address the diverse realities and needs of each 

watershed. WBPs provide a watershed-specific roadmap to guide cost-effective, well-informed 

restoration and protection efforts. EPA strongly supports this approach and continues to 

emphasize WBPs as the primary planning framework for § 319 watershed projects. 

For WBPs in watersheds that contain wetlands, additional documents are available to assist 

planners to effectively incorporate wetland protection and restoration into their efforts. These 

include EPA Region 5’s document entitled, EPA Region 5 Wetlands Supplement: Incorporating 

Wetlands into Watershed Planning (www.epa.gov/region5/agriculture), and a document 

produced by the Center for Watershed Protection, Using Local Watershed Plans to Protect 

Wetlands (2006) (www.cwp.org/documents/cat_view/73-wetlands-and-watersheds-articleseries.html).

The level of detail needed to address the nine elements of WBPs will vary in proportion to the 

homogeneity or similarity of land use types and variety and complexity of pollution sources. 

EPA encourages states and WBP developers to refer to the Handbook for Developing Watershed 

Plans to Restore and Protect our Waters to assess the level of detail most appropriate to fully 

address their planning needs. EPA continues to require that watershed projects funded under 

§ 319 directly implement a WBP addressing the nine elements. However, in select cases 

(described in section IX.B.ii), EPA may approve an alternative planning approach to guide 

implementation of watershed restoration or protection efforts. While watershed planning is an 

iterative and adaptive process, all plans (including WBPs and acceptable alternatives) should 

include the assessment necessary to provide assurance that the water quality problem can be fully 

addressed through the recommended management strategies outlined in the plan. 

EPA encourages efficiency in the utilization of other relevant planning documents that contain 

some or all of the information needed to fulfill the elements of a WBP. Where necessary 

information already exists, is representative of current conditions, and is of sufficient quality and 

detail for the planning area the information may be used to fulfill some or all of the required (a) 

through (i) WBP elements. Examples of such documents include various state and local 

watershed planning documents like TMDLs and TMDL implementation plans, source water 

protection assessments and plans, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Implementation Plans, National 

Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) or NEP annual 

project work plans. In such cases, this information should be incorporated by reference in a 

WBP. States should ensure that WBPs, including any planning elements addressed through other 

existing documents, are readily accessible to watershed stakeholders and the public to maximize 

their utility in providing a coherent, comprehensive roadmap that can effectively guide 

restoration and protection efforts.
20

B. Balance Between Planning and Implementation

States and EPA regions should ensure that a proper balance exists between funding the 

development and implementation of WBPs and TMDLs to meet the approved milestones and 

schedules in the state NPS management program. On one hand, states should support the 

development of WBPs at a sufficient pace to advance implementation efforts funded through 

§ 319 or other funding sources. On the other hand, WBP and TMDL development should not be 

funded at a pace that significantly exceeds the pace of implementation because these plans may 

become outdated before they are implemented. For those states where a large number of WBPs 

have been developed EPA encourages states to direct § 319 funds to the implementation of these 

plans if they are not being fully implemented with other sources of funding.

C. Integration of Watershed-based Plans and TMDLs

As noted in section II.D.ii, EPA encourages states to coordinate their efforts to develop and 

implement WBPs with efforts to develop and implement TMDLs. Where a TMDL for the 

affected waters has already been developed and approved or is being developed, the WBP must 

be designed to achieve the NPS pollutant load reductions called for in the TMDL. As described 

in section V.A, EPA encourages WBP developers to incorporate information from existing 

planning documents to meet the nine elements of a WBP. In cases where a TMDL and TMDL 

implementation plan exist and adequately address many of the nine elements of a WBP, EPA 

encourages states and WBP developers to incorporate such information by reference in the WBP.

However, where a TMDL has not yet been developed and approved, the state may use § 319 

funds to develop a WBP in the absence of the TMDL. In such cases, the plan must be designed 

to reduce NPS pollutant loadings that are contributing to water quality threats and impairments. 

If a TMDL has not yet been developed, the WBP should be designed to attain water quality 

standards if possible, or should describe how the implementation of the WBP will make progress 

towards achieving water quality standards. In this way, progress towards achieving water quality 

standards continues even before a TMDL is established. 

Once a TMDL is completed and approved, the WBP should be modified as appropriate to be 

consistent with the load allocation in the TMDL. Alternatively, through the course of 

implementing the WBP, the state may find that water quality standards are met, obviating the 

need to establish a TMDL. EPA believes that improving the integration of TMDLs and WBPs to 

implement NPS management measures will improve efficiency and help accelerate achievement 

of water quality standards. 

D. Role of EPA Regions in Watershed-based Plan Review

EPA remains committed to ensuring that § 319-funded restoration and protection projects are 

guided by well-developed WBPs. Consistent with the past § 319 guidelines, EPA recognizes that 

the success of a state NPS management program rests significantly on developing good-quality 

plans and implementing them effectively.
21

Since 2006, EPA has conducted two national reviews of WBPs to evaluate how well 

stakeholders were meeting the challenge of developing high-quality WBPs in accordance with 

the nine minimum elements (see appendix C). Both reviews concluded that while some plans 

were robust and provided a good foundation for watershed projects, many plans did not contain 

sufficient information to support a fully successful implementation effort. Further, the reviews 

recommended that: greater care be taken in development of WBPs to ensure they provide as 

specific a roadmap to future actions in the watershed as reasonably possible; states and their 

watershed partners should have sufficient technical and financial capacity to develop robust 

plans; and EPA regions work more closely with states to ensure WBPs are adequate.

In an effort to achieve greater program consistency in the quality of WBPs, beginning in fiscal 

year 2014 EPA regions will annually review a sample of WBPs from each state in their region 

and provide feedback and recommendations to help ensure these plans lay a good foundation for 

efforts to restore and/or protect waters. Each EPA regional office will have the discretion to 

determine the appropriate number of plans to review each year. EPA expects that one WBP per 

state per year will serve as a minimum threshold from which to begin these discussions in fiscal 

year 2014 and that the actual number will vary based on regional and state experience and 

circumstances. EPA regions will select the plan(s) for review and conduct each review to assess 

whether the WBP meets the nine elements outlined in appendix C of these guidelines.

EPA regional feedback should serve as the basis for dialogue between EPA, the state, and the 

WBP developer to discuss any opportunities for WBP improvements. Upon completion of each 

WBP review, the EPA region will provide written feedback to the state, identifying any 

opportunities for improving the plan to align with the nine minimum elements. The state will 

then work with the WBP developer (if not the state) to review EPA regional feedback and 

provide a written response describing how the suggested improvements will be addressed. In 

general, EPA regions have the discretion to determine when WBPs meet the nine minimum 

elements and thus are acceptable for implementation with watershed project funding.

EPA regions are encouraged to review draft WBPs currently under development, particularly 

where § 319 funds support plan development. EPA regions should ensure that each WBP review 

is timely so as not to interfere with plan completion nor delay implementation of the WBP. In 

cases when the EPA region elects to review a WBP being developed through a § 319 subgrant, 

EPA and the state should coordinate EPA’s review so that the subgrantee has ample time and 

resources to make any necessary revisions before the subgrant closes. In cases when the EPA 

region selects a completed WBP to review, for which the § 319 subgrant may have already 

closed, any adjustments to the WBP based on EPA feedback should occur prior to its 

implementation with additional § 319 funds. As described in section IX.B.ii of these guidelines,

there are select cases when an alternative plan to a WBP can serve as an effective roadmap to 

guide watershed project implementation. In these cases, states may use watershed project funds 

to implement an acceptable alternative plan. EPA regions will review and approve all alternative 

plans proposed for implementation in the state’s § 319 grant work plan to ensure required 

planning elements are adequately addressed. 
22

VI. Measuring and Tracking Our Progress

To measure and track progress on a national basis, EPA’s NPS program currently relies on two 

quantitative national program measures.

8

The first (measure WQ-9a,b,c) tracks the estimated 

annual load reductions of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment achieved by § 319- funded 

projects. The second measure, WQ-10, tracks the number of waterbodies identified by states as 

being primarily NPS-impaired that have been partially or fully restored as a result of restoration 

efforts. This measure is often referred to as the “success stories” measure. EPA believes these 

national program measures are important to illustrate the achievements by states to control NPS 

pollution through § 319 investments. For example, since 2007, states have reported success in 

over 435 waterbodies. This is a considerable achievement, as attaining water quality standards in 

impaired waters typically takes years of concerted effort and investment. 

Even in light of these accomplishments, EPA recognizes that the national program measures are 

limited in scope and likely do not capture all state successes supported under § 319. EPA is 

considering options for improving national program measures for the NPS program as well as for 

several other water programs. For the NPS program, EPA’s goal is to more effectively measure 

state efforts in improving water quality, short of the full or partial restoration captured in the 

“success stories” measure. EPA will also explore developing a measure to capture state successes 

in protecting unimpaired/high quality waters. Finally, EPA will be developing a mechanism to 

improve tracking outputs and outcomes achieved with NPS program and watershed project funds 

through § 319 grants. 

In addition to the required national program measures, states may choose to adopt other 

measures of progress for their NPS programs. Appendix B of these guidelines contains an 

illustrative set of optional indicators and measures that can help the states and the public gauge 

the progress and success of their NPS management programs. State measures that are part of an 

approved state NPS management program will be considered by EPA for demonstrating progress 

toward meeting annual milestones under 319(h)(8). States may identify and use other indicators 

and measures that are most relevant to their particular NPS problems, programs, and projects. 

In these guidelines we discuss the use of the § 319 program's Grants Reporting and Tracking 

System (GRTS) to track implementation of programs and projects, estimate pollutant load 

reductions, and report the amount of acres of wetlands and feet of riparian areas protected or 

restored. In addition, EPA's Watershed Assessment, Tracking and Environmental Results 

(WATERS) Information System, which combines a variety of water quality information 

including from state § 305(b) reports and § 303(d) lists, provides information that indicates when 

an impaired waterbody achieves water quality standards. (For more general information on 

WATERS, and on the Consolidated Assessment and Listing 

Methodology (CALM) that supports the § 305(b) and § 303(d) processes, see 

www.epa.gov/waters and www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/calm.html.) 

 

8

In addition to these two NPS program measures, EPA’s measure on improving water quality conditions in impaired 

watersheds using the watershed approach (measure SP-12) is also important for tracking nationwide success in the 

NPS program.
23

VII. Annual Performance and Progress Determinations

EPA has a statutory obligation under § 319(h)(8) to determine that states make satisfactory 

progress in meeting the schedule of relevant annual milestones specified in their NPS 

management programs, and is prohibited from awarding grants under § 319(h) in the absence of 

such a determination. This is another essential reason that EPA is requiring NPS management 

programs be updated and kept current – so that program objectives and milestones are relevant 

for each grant period. Having an updated NPS management program will be an essential 

foundation for a finding of satisfactory progress. Further, a key recommendation from the § 319 

program reform workgroup was to broaden the accountability process to encompass other 

aspects of § 319 grant performance in keeping with EPA’s responsibility to ensure accountability 

for the management of § 319(h) grant funds. EPA is authorized by § 319(h)(10), as well as under 

its authority to make grants, to request certain information needed to determine continuing grant 

eligibility and performance.

Beginning in fiscal year 2012, EPA provided a national framework and standardized template for 

conducting these annual performance and progress determinations that encompass the 

requirement under § 319(h)(8), as well as key information regarding § 319(h) grant performance 

more broadly. Based on experience in fiscal year 2012 with feedback and input from EPA 

regions and states, EPA is issuing an update to this template for use in fiscal year 2014 and 

beyond. This update is included in appendix E: Guidance and Checklist for Determining 

Progress of State NPS Management Programs and Performance of CWA Section 319 Grants.

VIII. § 319 Funding Information

This section provides general information and guidance to states on topics of interest to § 319 

grant recipients, including sub-sections on funding urban stormwater activities, source water 

protection activities, activities to implement CZARA, and NPS water quality monitoring. This 

section also provides § 319 grant-specific information, including an overview of the schedule for 

awarding § 319 grants. For specific requirements for state § 319 grant recipients, see section IX 

“Grants Guidelines.”

A. Activities Eligible for Funding Under § 319 

Approved state NPS management programs provide the framework for determining what 

activities are eligible for funding under § 319(h). These guidelines emphasize the use of § 319 

funds for the implementation of WBPs to restore impaired waters and require states to set aside 

at least 50% of the § 319 funds for watershed projects that implement WBPs. This set-aside is 

referred to as watershed project funding. States may use the remaining 50% of the § 319 funds, 

referred to as NPS program funds, for the full range of activities that support the goals of the 

state NPS management program. NPS program funds may be used for non-regulatory or 

regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, 

training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and eligible NPS monitoring. In addition, 

states may use NPS program funds for planning activities such as revisions to the state NPS 

management programs, development or implementation of WBPs (or acceptable alternatives), 

and the development of NPS and mixed source TMDLs. States must demonstrate that a proper 
24

balance exists between WBP/TMDL development and implementation activities supported by

§ 319 funds. Areas of program priority for a state, including (but not limited to) any of the 

activities listed below, should be identified in the state’s NPS management program.

EPA encourages each state to use § 319 funds to restore and protect the priority waterbody types 

for the state including all types of surface water (and ground water if applicable) as identified in 

the state’s NPS management program. For ground water, as in the past, EPA's policy is to award 

all § 319 grants under § 319(h), in lieu of awarding separate grants under § 319(i). For lakes, 

EPA encourages states to use § 319 funding for eligible activities that might have been funded in 

previous years under § 314 (Clean Lakes) of the Clean Water Act. EPA has made the decision to 

fund activities for lakes and ground water under § 319(h) to encourage integration of ground 

water and lakes activities with overall state NPS management programs, while maximizing state 

flexibility to consider and prioritize all causes and effects of nonpoint sources of water pollution.

Ground water activities are eligible for § 319(h) grants to the extent that they are identified 

directly in the state's NPS management program or through incorporation in the management 

program by reference to the state's ground water protection strategy, comprehensive state ground 

water protection program, or source water protection program. If such activities are not currently 

included in the state's NPS management program, the program should be amended to include 

them if § 319 funds are to be used for this purpose.

B. Urban Stormwater Runoff

§ 319 funds may be used to fund any urban stormwater activities that do not directly implement a 

final municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) NPDES permit. EPA has issued regulations 

implementing NPDES permit requirements of § 402(p)(2) of the Clean Water Act (“Phase I” 

rule). Phase I, in place since 1990, requires operators of medium and large MS4s located in 

incorporated places and counties with populations of more than 100,000, certain industrial 

activities, and construction activities disturbing 5 acres of land or more to obtain an NPDES 

permit to discharge stormwater. (See 55 FR 47990, November 1990.) In 1999, EPA promulgated

regulations under § 402(p)(6) which expanded the federal stormwater program with the 

promulgation of the “Phase II” rule. (See 64 FR 68722, December 8, 1999, 

www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WATER/1999/December/Day-08/w29181a.htm.) Phase II requires 

operators of small MS4s (non-Phase I regulated MS4s) in “urbanized areas” and small 

construction activities disturbing between 1 and 5 acres of land to obtain an NPDES permit.

States may use § 319 funds for those urban stormwater activities that do not directly implement a 

final NPDES permit (e.g., not explicitly required in a permit or plan required by the permit) or an 

order applicable to regulated stormwater discharges under Clean Water Act § 402(p). These 

include aspects of Phase I and II activities that may support but do not directly implement 

activities required by Phase I or Phase II permits, as well as activities that go above and beyond 

permit requirements. In addition, states may use § 319 funds for stormwater management 

activities that are not subject to NPDES permitting requirements under either §§ 402(p)(2) or 

402(p)(6).
25

EPA recognizes the benefits of integrating § 319 funds and stormwater activities as much as is 

legally allowable. EPA also recognizes the importance of green infrastructure and low impact 

development in managing stormwater and supports flexibility to fund these activities through 

§ 319 where appropriate. Under many existing stormwater NPDES permits, green infrastructure 

that simulates natural hydrology by capturing stormwater where it falls and infiltrating, 

evapotranspiring, or harvesting and using it, often does not directly implement the terms of the

permit. In these cases green infrastructure activities may be fundable under § 319. Specific 

examples include green roofs, infiltration basins, curb cuts and landscaped swales, and 

wetland/riparian area protection and restoration. Listed below are some urban runoff 

management activities in addition to green infrastructure that may generally be considered 

eligible for § 319 funding as long as they do not directly implement a final NPDES permit (this 

list is not meant to be comprehensive):

Technical assistance to state and local stormwater programs;

Monitoring needed to design and evaluate the effectiveness of implementation 

strategies;

BMPs for pollution prevention and runoff control (except for BMPs that directly 

implement NPDES permits);

 Outreach and education programs outside of the general scope outlined within the 

NPDES permit;

Technology transfer and training; 

Development and implementation of regulations, policies, and local ordinances to 

address storm water runoff (These may apply to areas covered by NPDES permits, 

provided that the regulations, policies and ordinances apply to non-permitted areas as 

well.); and

Stormwater projects occurring outside of the NPDES permit area.

In addition to not being used to directly implement final NPDES stormwater permits, § 319 

funds may not be used to implement permit application requirements of EPA's stormwater 

regulations. For example, § 319 funds may not be used to meet permit application requirements 

such as mapping stormwater systems, identifying illicit connections, characterizing stormwater 

discharges, or monitoring required by permits. § 319 funds may not be used to pay for BMPs or 

“end of pipe” treatments which are required as part of a NPDES permit. These prohibitions are 

based on the statutory limitations on the use of § 319 funds, including Congressional intent that 

these funds be used to address nonpoint sources, rather than permitted point sources. Congress 

determined that permitted point sources would generally comply with NPDES permit 

requirements without obtaining federal grants. (However, “publicly owned treatment works,” 

which include publicly owned methods or systems for preventing, abating, reducing, storing, 

treating, separating or disposing of “stormwater runoff” are eligible to receive financial 

assistance under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program.) 

As stormwater permits continue to evolve, more of them may include retention-based 

requirements and greater specificity in required management practices. In this instance, a caseby-case consideration may be needed to determine eligibility of specific projects for § 319 

funding. In these cases states should consult with EPA on § 319 funding eligibility. In addition, 

states should consider whether municipal governments are sufficiently utilizing other available 
26

funding sources for innovative stormwater management, such as funds derived from stormwaterrelated fees and CWSRF financial assistance.

C. Source Water Protection

EPA’s NPS program shares several common goals with the source water protection program 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and EPA seeks to improve the linkages and coordination 

between the programs. Source water information such as assessment reports and delineations, 

protection plans, drinking water program violation data, as well as source water partnerships can 

support targeted watershed protection efforts. EPA encourages the coordination of state NPS 

programs, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and the CWSRF in funding source water 

protection projects.

State NPS program staff should work with state source water protection coordinators 

(www.ASDWA.org/sourcewatercontacts) to leverage these opportunities. In addition, 

MyWATERS Mapper provides information about the density of drinking water intakes and 

wellheads at the 12-digit HUC level (watersgeo.epa.gov/mwm), as does the Nitrogen and 

Phosphorus Data Access Tool (NPDAT, www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/npdat). The latter also 

provides modeling estimates of nitrogen loading.

EPA encourages states to integrate source water assessments and protection plans into their NPS 

planning efforts, and in doing so, to consider the effects of climate change on water quality and 

water availability. This will increase the coordination of programs, authorities, and funding 

sources to protect sources of drinking water from NPS pollution and improve the effectiveness 

and efficiency of both programs' efforts. States may use § 319 funds for source water protection 

projects for both surface water and ground water, consistent with the provisions of these 

guidelines.

D. CZARA Implementation

EPA encourages states with coastal nonpoint pollution control programs under § 6217 of the 

Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (“CZARA”) to use § 319 funds to assist 

in the implementation of management measures contained in these programs. CZARA requires 

states to “implement the program, including the management measures... through changes to the 

state plan for control of nonpoint source pollution approved under section 319...” State NPS 

program staff should therefore work closely with state coastal nonpoint program staff to 

coordinate the state coastal nonpoint pollution control program with the state NPS management 

program. For states with expired conditional approvals of their coastal nonpoint pollution control 

program, these guidelines specify that states set aside a portion of § 319 funds annually to 

complete the development of these programs. (See section IX.J.)

E. NPS Monitoring

EPA recognizes that monitoring is an important component of a state NPS program and is 

essential for documenting the restoration of impaired waters. EPA encourages states to use § 319 
27

funds as appropriate for eligible NPS monitoring activities identified in the state NPS 

management program. (See section IX.E.)

i. Integration with Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Efforts

EPA encourages state NPS programs to coordinate with state ambient monitoring and assessment 

efforts to ensure that NPS monitoring needs are considered in the design and planning of the 

state water quality monitoring program. State NPS programs can benefit from leveraging 

existing ambient monitoring programs for water quality trends, using and expanding flow 

gauging stations, and coordinating with monitoring programs that routinely address water quality 

standards attainment through the use of state scale statistical surveys or monitoring on a rotating 

basin basis. Approaches that can provide useful information for the NPS program include 

ambient water quality monitoring (e.g., small watersheds, multiple watersheds, in-lake 

monitoring, monitoring by public water systems), beneficial use assessment (e.g., biological/ 

habitat assessment, attainment of biocriteria and water quality standards), tracking of 

implementation or land use activities affecting water quality (e.g., BMP audits, activity tracking, 

geographic information system tracking of land use and land management), and photographic 

evidence. Statewide monitoring councils, made up of local, state, university, and federal agencies 

involved in monitoring, can help state NPS programs by providing a forum for routine sharing of 

monitoring activities and by supporting efforts such as citizen monitoring programs.

States are also encouraged to explore other cost-effective approaches to conducting monitoring 

or obtaining available data. For example, the US Geological Survey, US Forest Service, US 

Bureau of Land Management, universities, US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, 

conservation districts, and others support assessment of various types and may house useful data. 

Some of these organizations can also provide technical support and monitoring assistance. In 

addition, volunteer monitoring programs are used by many states to obtain water quality data in a 

cost-effective manner. Any water quality monitoring or assessment program that has a quality 

assurance project plan that has been reviewed and approved by the state (allowing a level of 

confidence in the data as it is considered for use by the NPS management program) should be 

utilized as appropriate.

ii. National NPS Monitoring Program

To provide national documentation of the feasibility of controlling and preventing pollution from 

nonpoint sources, and to improve technical understanding of NPS pollution and the effectiveness 

of control technologies and approaches, EPA and many states have been implementing a 

rigorous and standardized monitoring framework that can be used for a representative subset of 

watershed projects funded under § 319. This framework is referred to as the National NPS 

Monitoring Program. Monitoring for this subset of selected watershed projects is being 

conducted at appropriate frequency intervals and for appropriately long periods of time that 

include monitoring before, during, and following implementation to ensure accounting for

sources of variation. 
28

EPA’s National NPS Monitoring Program is an ongoing source of technical information and 

assistance for state NPS monitoring programs. EPA has developed a framework for selecting 

national monitoring projects, issued guidelines for minimum monitoring activities, and 

developed guidance on statistical methods for assessing, managing, and reporting data. To date, 

28 national projects have been selected across the country through a rigorous but collaborative 

process involving the states, EPA regions, and EPA headquarters. Additional high-quality 

monitoring projects will be selected in future years using the same collaborative process. For all 

projects, EPA provides specialized technical support in project development, monitoring design, 

data management and analysis, and reporting. From time to time, and in close collaboration with 

relevant states and project managers, EPA will publish progress reports and results.

EPA encourages states to use the information generated from these projects to design the 

monitoring element of WBPs, collect pre-project baseline data, and track the success of WBPs. 

The 2011 status report on these projects can be found online at

www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/wqg/319monitoring.

EPA has also published several detailed guidance documents to assist states and others in 

conducting monitoring programs to both track implementation and determine the success of onthe-ground projects in achieving water quality improvement goals. (See Monitoring Guidance 

for Determining the Effectiveness of Nonpoint Source Controls, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Water, EPA 841-B-96-004, 1997 and other publications that are listed at

water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/pubs.cfm#monitoring.)

F. Allocation of Funds

EPA uses the allocation formula presented in appendix D to determine the amount of funding to 

be awarded to each state. The factors used in the allocation formula, as well as the weights used 

in the formula, have remained the same since the § 319 grants program began. Each year, after 

accounting for tribal § 319 program funds, the Congressional appropriation for § 319 will be 

multiplied by the applicable percentage presented in appendix D to determine each state's 

allocation for that year. Upon receiving the annual Congressional § 319 appropriation and final 

Agency Operating Plan, EPA headquarters will notify the EPA regional offices of each state's 

allocation, and the regions will notify the states. In advance of the final appropriation, the EPA 

regions and states will begin grant negotiations based on the previous year’s award amount or the 

President’s budget, whichever is higher, as described in Grants Policy Issuance 12-06, Timely 

Obligation, Award, and Expenditure of EPA Grant Funds.

G. Schedule for Awarding § 319 Grants

i. State Project Solicitation and Selection Process

States are strongly encouraged to begin their internal project development and project solicitation 

processes (such as identification of priority areas for funding and request for proposals (RFPs)) 

as early as possible to ensure that project proposals are secured in advance of, or as early as 

possible in, the fiscal year for § 319 grant award. States should reference their approved state 

NPS management programs (e.g., in a request for proposal) so that project sponsors are focusing 
29

on activities consistent with the state NPS management program. States and EPA regions are 

also encouraged, where feasible, to discuss proposed projects prior to submission of the draft 

work plan to EPA program staff so that the subsequent submission can be reviewed and 

approved quickly. In particular, EPA encourages states to submit subgrantee project proposals to 

EPA as soon as possible if they believe that there are difficult issues that may arise (e.g., whether 

the proposed project is legally fundable or meets criteria established in applicable guidelines) or 

if they desire technical assistance from EPA. EPA will approve projects for funding through the 

approval of state § 319 work plans.

EPA encourages states to review and make appropriate adjustments to state project solicitation 

processes and project selection criteria as necessary to ensure that criteria reflect the priorities in 

the state’s NPS management program. Project selection criteria are critical to ensuring the 

selection of well-designed projects implemented by project proponents with the capacity to 

deliver water quality improvements. 

EPA regions will ensure subgrants comply with EPA’s Assistance Administration Manual 5700, 

Part 2, Section 01, Subawards Under EPA Assistance Agreements.

ii. Process for Awarding § 319 Grants

EPA recognizes that there is a wide variation among states for awarding § 319 grants (e.g., due 

to differing fiscal years, state RFP processes), and is presenting this process to provide a general 

outline of the steps to be followed without dictating a uniform schedule for state submissions. 

EPA regions should review and comply with Grants Policy Issuance 12-06, Timely Obligation, 

Award, and Expenditure of EPA Grant Funds, and Grants Policy Issuance 11-01, Managing 

Unliquidated Obligations and Ensuring Progress under EPA Assistance Agreements. Among 

other provisions, these policies limit most grants to 5-year project periods, and require EPA 

regional program offices to negotiate a target outlay strategy with their states to ensure the timely 

drawdown of federal funds.

Prior to beginning the award process, EPA regions will discuss with each state a 

submittal/negotiation schedule to ensure timely award of the § 319 grant. If any national annual 

guidance is needed, EPA headquarters will strive to issue such guidance as early as possible in 

the preceding fiscal year. 

Step 1: States begin subgrantee proposal processes, if applicable. 

 States should expeditiously implement their processes to develop or solicit subgrantee 

proposals (e.g., the RFP process used by many states to solicit grant projects). States 

are encouraged to solicit input from EPA regions on draft state RFPs when 

appropriate. They should also develop expeditious processes to review project 

proposals and select the top projects for inclusion in their draft work plan. States 

should provide clear written guidance to all project applicants to assure they are 

aware of federal requirements for project eligibility, state NPS program priorities, and 

state criteria for project selection. If the state is soliciting projects for the protection of 

unimpaired/high quality waters, the state should provide project applicants with 
30

specific selection criteria consistent with this priority in their state NPS management 

program.

EPA regional involvement in the state subgrant process will follow EPA’s Assistance 

Administration Manual 5700, Part 2, Section 01, Subawards Under EPA Assistance 

Agreements.

Step 2: States submit draft work plans to EPA regional office.

 Each state will submit a draft work plan to EPA regional program staff. Each EPA 

region will work closely with the state to provide input as the state develops the grant 

work plan. EPA regions must be able to determine from the draft work plans that they 

conform to all applicable legal requirements of § 319, EPA's general grant regulations 

in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35 Subpart A, (www.epa.gov/quality/qa_cfrs.html), the 

requirements of OMB Circulars9 A-21, A-87, A-102, A-110, A-122, A-133 

(www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_default) and all other applicable EPA orders 

and policies including these guidelines. The EPA region will work with the state to 

ensure that the work plan (1) is designed to help achieve the goals and objectives 

contained in these guidelines and in the state's NPS management program, and to 

assess the state’s success in meeting these goals; (2) has programmatic, technical, 

and/or scientific merit; (3) includes costs that are eligible, reasonable, necessary,

allowable and consistent with the grant, including costs for state and local staff; (4) is 

well-coordinated with other state and federal programs; (5) identifies and resolves 

gaps between program objectives and planned activities; (6) clearly identifies the 

specific outcomes, outputs, and other results (e.g., water quality restoration targets) 

that are linked to funding and includes target dates and milestones for achieving 

them; (7) facilitates tracking progress toward national goals in reducing NPS 

pollutant loads and in achieving and maintaining water quality standards.

Step 3: EPA regions conduct reviews of state draft work plans and provide 

comments to the state.

 EPA regional staff will review each state's draft work plan and communicate with the 

state to resolve any technical or administrative issues. EPA regions will strive to 

conduct such reviews and provide feedback to states as quickly as possible. This 

feedback should focus on consistency with the factors described in step 2 above. EPA 

regions may also provide technical comments to the state on ways in which particular 

proposed projects or programs could be clarified, improved, or otherwise modified to 

result in a better project or program. 

Step 4: States submit final work plans and grant applications to EPA regions.

 States are encouraged to submit final work plans and grant applications to EPA 

regions as quickly as possible. States should contact EPA to discuss any questions and 

 

9

Four of these OMB Circulars have been codified in 2 CFR. Listed in the same order as the text above, they have 

been codified as 2 CFR Part 220, 2 CFR Part 225, not codified, 2 CFR Part 215, 2 CFR Part 230, and not codified.
31

the intended responses to EPA comments on the draft work plan, and the final work 

plan must address all comments. 

Step 5: EPA regions award grants to state.

 Each EPA region will review final state grant work plans. If a state work plan meets 

all the requirements described under steps 2 and 3 above, the EPA region will award 

the final grant as quickly as possible. EPA regions will conduct final reviews of 

complete state work plans and approve the work plan within 60 days of receipt (see 40 

CFR Part 35.110). Where any issues remain unresolved, the EPA region and/or the 

state will elevate discussions to more senior management levels to quickly achieve 

resolution. The EPA region will strive to inform a state within 30 days of receipt of the 

state’s grant application if the state application is not complete. In the event that funds 

cannot be fully awarded to a particular state within a reasonable time, the region may 

reallocate the funds to another state. 

 The grant award is contingent upon the EPA region determining in writing that the 

state has made “satisfactory progress” in the preceding fiscal year in meeting the 

schedule and milestones specified in the state NPS management program. (See section 

IX.L.)

Step 6: States obligate funds as expeditiously as possible.

 States will obligate the awarded funds as quickly as possible and conduct funded 

activities according to the schedules contained in the approved work plan. EPA has 

interpreted § 319(h)(6) to provide that § 319 funds granted to a state shall remain 

available for obligation to subawards and contracts by the state for one year from the 

grant award. For example, grant funds awarded to a state on December 1, 2013, 

remain available for obligation until December 1, 2014. The amount of any such funds 

that cannot be obligated by one year from the grant award shall, under § 319(h)(6), be 

available to EPA for granting to other states. EPA regions should include in each grant 

a condition requiring the grant recipient to award all proposed subgrants, contracts and 

interagency agreements within one year after the grant award.10 Note that the term 

“obligate” does not mean to “expend.” As defined in 40 CFR 31.3, “obligations” 

means “the amounts of orders placed, contracts and subgrants awarded, goods and 

services received, and similar transactions during a given period of time that will

require payment by the grantee during the same or a future period.”

(ecfr.gpoaccess.gov)

EPA recognizes that each state has a different process, often governed or influenced by

state laws, regulations, or control mechanisms that result in varying time periods for 

subgrants and contracts to implement projects. States should make every effort, 

including modifying state procedures, if appropriate, to assure that the funds are made 

available to project implementers as soon as possible after the grant is awarded to the 

state.

 

10 This grant condition and others, including the sufficient progress term and condition to comply with GPI 11-01, 

are included in EPA’s nationally consistent § 319 grant terms and conditions list for fiscal year 2014 and beyond

(see appendix F).
32

iii. State Expenditure of Awarded Funds

Funds appropriated by Congress should be efficiently and effectively used for their intended 

purpose, and should not remain unused for significant amounts of time. States must expend 

appropriated and awarded funds as rapidly as practicable based on the approved work plan and 

the funds outlay strategy negotiated by the region and the state. Where states are funding multiyear watershed project subgrants, the preferred approach may be to award the funds gradually 

over a period of years rather than to award all of the funds at one time, to increase the rate of 

expenditure of awarded funds. EPA will continue to work with the states to streamline the § 319 

grant award process and to facilitate best practices to ensure the rate of expenditure of § 319 

funds is appropriate and commensurate with the outlay strategy and approved work plan

negotiated with the state, and that all funds awarded to the state are drawn down within the 5 

year project period.

H. Relationship to PPGs

Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) are grant delivery tools that allow states and tribes to 

combine up to 20 eligible State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program grants, including Clean 

Water Act § 319 grants, into one multi-program grant. PPGs typically reduce administrative 

costs by streamlining paperwork and accounting procedures, provide flexibility to direct 

resources toward the highest priority environmental problems, and support cross-media 

approaches or initiatives. Administrative benefits typically include a single grant work plan, 

budget, performance progress report, and federal financial report. Additionally, the PPG nonfederal cost share is a composite of the cost shares for each of the grants in the PPG and can be 

met using any combination of the appropriate funds the state has available.

The § 319 funds are eligible for inclusion in a PPG. States that wish to include the § 319 grant in 

a PPG should use these guidelines to develop their NPS work plans. Many states use a 

Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA), or portions of the PPA, as the PPG work plan. All 

state grant work plans, including PPGs, must meet the requirements of 40 CFR 35.107(b) and the 

portions of the PPA that serve as a grant work plan must meet all of these requirements. In 

addition, the portions of the PPA that are used as the work plan must be clearly identified and 

distinguished from other portions of the PPA and meet the requirements in 40 CFR 35.107(b). 

(See 40 CRF 35.107(c)(1).) PPG work plans also are required by 40 CFR 35.107(b) to specify 

workplan components to be funded under the PPG and the related NPS activity category and the 

work plan commitments to be produced for each category. (See 40 CRF 35.268(d)(4).) (See the

Code of Federal Regulations at ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.) 

States with § 319 funding included in PPGs are subject to the same program reporting, 

evaluation, and other accountability requirements contained in EPA’s grants regulations. As with

any other EPA grant, states are held accountable for achieving the outcomes and outputs set out 

in PPG work plans. States are required to submit work plans, annual reports, and to provide 

reporting under the GRTS at a level of detail to ensure that EPA regions can measure and track 

outcomes and outputs to ensure accountability. To meet basic NPS national program 

requirements under these guidelines, PPG states will be required to identify work plan outcomes 

and outputs as NPS program or watershed project funded work, and to provide other identifiers 
33

such as whether a project is focused on restoration or protection. However, states will not be 

required to track specific fund expenditures via GRTS under the PPG.

In keeping with the goals of PPGs, 40 CFR 35.107(a)(1) provides flexibility for states to propose 

grant work plans that differ from the goals, objectives and measures in the National Water 

Program Guidance (water.epa.gov/resource_performance/planning). If a state proposes a work 

plan that is significantly different from the goals and objectives, priorities, or core performance 

measures for NPS activities in the National Water Program Guidance, the regional administrator 

must consult with the NPS national program manager before agreeing to the work plan. 

I. Multi-Year Work Plans

EPA encourages states to develop multi-year work plans for § 319 grants when a multi-year 

work plan can improve efficiency in grants management or program implementation. For 

example, the state may wish to present a three-year work plan which would guide the state's 

grant activities for the next three years. This work plan, when approved by EPA, would not have 

to be resubmitted and re-approved except to the extent that the state wishes to change it to 

address new circumstances. In addition to the information required in section IX.H below, the 

work plan should include the interim milestones and final dates for completion of activities. The 

interim milestones should be sufficiently frequent to assure timely performance throughout the 

project period, so that the state can identify problems and correct them expeditiously.

For multi-year awards, states should apply for the total amount of funds expected for the period 

covered by the award and include any required match in the application; the state work plan 

should cover the same time period. EPA will fund the application incrementally as funds become 

available.

The multi-year planning approach can reduce paper work and improve long-term planning and 

implementation with respect to both programmatic activities and specific watershed projects. 

States and EPA will, however, retain the option of negotiating modifications to multi-year work 

plans on an annual basis.

IX.Grants Guidelines

A. Use of § 319 Funds

§ 319 grants must meet certain statutory, regulatory and other administrative criteria that have 

been established to ensure that § 319 funds are used in a fiscally prudent manner. All § 319 

grants must be consistent with applicable provisions of § 319 of the Clean Water Act; EPA's 

general grant regulations in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35 (ecfr.gpoaccess.gov); OMB circulars; 

applicable EPA Orders and Policies, and these guidelines.

State NPS program managers should note EPA’s grant regulations at 40 CFR Part 35. (See 66 

FR 1725-1747.) These regulations contain sections 35.260--268, which address the purpose of 

NPS management grants (section 260); the maximum Federal share (section 265); the 
34

maintenance of effort requirement (section 266); and some of the award limitations contained in 

§ 319 (section 268). (The full Code of Federal Regulations can be found at ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.)

B. Watershed Project Funds

i. 50 Percent of Total § 319 Funding for Watershed Project Implementation

States must use at least 50% of the annual appropriation of § 319 funds (watershed project funds) 

to implement watershed projects guided by WBPs. (WBPs are described in section V.A of these 

guidelines and WBP elements are outlined in appendix C). In select scenarios as outlined below, 

projects may implement acceptable alternative plans to a WBP.

These guidelines further require that watershed project funds go toward restoring impaired 

waters through the implementation of WBPs or acceptable alternative plans. Activities necessary 

to implement WBPs or acceptable alternative plans for watersheds containing one or more 

impaired waters are considered restoration activities. Where a state has an updated NPS 

management program that identifies protection of unimpaired/high quality waters11 as a priority 

and describes its process for identifying such waters, there is flexibility to use a limited amount 

of watershed project funds for activities to protect identified waters following consultation with 

EPA through § 319 grant work plan negotiations. The proportion of watershed project funds 

allocated to protecting high quality waters could vary depending on the relative priority of 

restoration and protection activities in the state's NPS management program and the array of 

projects ready for § 319 funding and implementation in that particular year.

Protection projects can reduce or eliminate current and future threats to unimpaired/high quality

waters. Because EPA’s current program measures are primarily aimed at tracking the restoration 

of impaired waters due to NPS pollution control efforts (pollutant load reductions, waters 

improving or restored to water quality standards), EPA encourages states investing in protection 

to adopt programmatic measures and indicators aimed specifically at measuring the 

environmental and water quality results of protection efforts. (See appendix B for a list of 

measures and indicators to consider.) In the near future, EPA will also give consideration to 

other potential measures of success for the § 319 program, including measures for protection 

efforts. To ensure that watershed project funds go to restoring impaired waters, EPA will enable 

GRTS to track § 319-funded watershed projects according to their primary goal: restoration or 

protection.

Watershed project funds may not be used for planning activities such as WBP and TMDL 

development. However, as part of a 319-funded project to implement an existing completed 

WBP whose technical analyses may need minor updates, EPA regions may allow states to use a 

very limited amount of watershed project funds to support necessary technical revisions (e.g., 

updates to watershed modeling to account for changes in land use) as part of a project to 

implement that WBP. In these instances watershed project funds may not be used to conduct 

 

11 For example, a state may wish to identify headwater streams, wetlands, and/or other high priority unimpaired 

waters for protection.
35

other planning work related to the WBP including more general updates to the plan, soliciting 

public comment, etc.

ii. Alternatives to Nine-Element Watershed-based Plans (WBPs)

As discussed in section V.A. of these guidelines, effective planning is always necessary to 

successfully guide watershed restoration or protection efforts. National experience indicates that 

WBPs provide an effective, integrated approach to address the diverse situations and needs of 

each NPS-impaired watershed. WBPs provide a framework to comprehensively assess the causes 

and sources of NPS pollutants contributing to impairment, and then prioritize restoration and 

protection strategies to address these water quality problems. The level of detail needed to 

address the nine elements of WBPs will vary depending on the scale and complexity of pollution 

sources. EPA continues to expect that states will put the primary focus of § 319-funded 

watershed projects on implementing WBPs to restore impaired waters.

EPA recognizes that many states and local groups already have in place or are developing 

watershed plans and strategies at varying levels of scale, scope, and specificity that might 

contribute significantly to the elements of a WBP. EPA encourages states and others to build on 

existing planning documents that adequately address some or all of the required (a) through (i) 

WBP elements. Existing planning documents, such as TMDLs and TMDL implementation plans, 

may serve as valuable building blocks for a WBP and where applicable, should be incorporated

by reference in the WBP.

In a few select cases listed below, EPA recognizes that alternative plans to a WBP may provide 

an effective roadmap to achieve the water quality goals of § 319-funded restoration or protection 

efforts. In such cases, states must provide the EPA region with justification for why a complete 

WBP is not necessary and why an alternative plan is sufficient to guide watershed project 

implementation. This justification may be described through, or included in, the state’s § 319 

work plan. 

Except when addressing a NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk, EPA 

requires that all projects implementing a WBP or acceptable alternative plan directly address 

priorities outlined in the state NPS management program. Additionally, the state must ensure that

alternative plans reflect a geographically-appropriate scale to achieve water quality goals. Prior 

to implementation, all plans should include analysis sufficient to ensure that the water quality 

problem or threat can be fully addressed through the recommended management strategies 

outlined in the plan.

EPA regions will review and approve all alternative plans proposed for implementation in the

state’s § 319 grant work plan to ensure the following planning elements are adequately 

addressed:

Identification of the causes or sources of NPS impairment, water quality problem, or 

threat to unimpaired/high quality waters;

Watershed project goal(s) and explanation of how the proposed project(s) will 

achieve or make advancements towards achieving water quality goals;

Schedule and milestones to guide project implementation;
36

Proposed management measures (including a description of operation and 

maintenance requirements) and explanation of how these measures will effectively 

address the NPS impairment identified above; and 

Water quality results monitoring component, including description of process and 

measures (e.g., water quality parameters, stream flow metrics, biological indicators) 

to gauge project success.

EPA regions may approve the use of watershed project funding to implement alternative plans 

containing the above elements in the following circumstances:

a. When the impairment is not specific to a pollutant. 

The current WBP approach places emphasis on identifying major NPS pollutant 

sources in critical areas as well as planning for and achieving NPS pollutant load 

reductions. In scenarios where the impairment is not caused by a pollutant, but rather 

by a non-pollutant-based water quality problem (e.g., obstructions for migratory fish or 

addressing flow regime alterations), an alternative plan may be sufficient to guide § 319 

funded watershed projects. In such cases, the state should provide assurance that 

appropriate watershed analyses were conducted to ascertain that the water quality 

problem will be fully addressed by dealing with the non-pollutant source of 

impairment.

b. When responding to a NPS pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk.

In scenarios when the proposed § 319 project(s) responds to an urgent, unplanned NPS 

pollution emergency or urgent NPS public health risk in an area for which a WBP does 

not exist (e.g., efforts to control erosion and re-establish vegetation in the immediate 

aftermath of a forest fire, to reduce pollution affecting drinking water safety), an 

alternative plan may be developed to ensure the timely, targeted use of watershed 

project funds.

c. When protecting assessed unimpaired/high quality waters.

Where a watershed includes both impaired and unimpaired/high quality waters, a WBP 

should be developed to address all actions needed to maintain and restore water quality. 

In scenarios where a state has assessed waters that are largely or fully attaining water 

quality standards and are located in watersheds where only protection actions are needed 

(i.e., measures to prevent future degradation), an alternative to a WBP may be 

warranted.

d. When addressing an isolated, small-scale water quality problem resulting from one 

or a few sources of pollution.

An alternative plan may be acceptable when the NPS problem and solution are 

extremely limited in scope and scale, such that the water quality problem is caused by 

one or a very few pollution sources (e.g., a failing septic system). In such cases, the state 

must demonstrate (through up- and downstream monitoring, watershed characterization 

studies, etc.) that this impairment is isolated from other potential contributing 

causes/sources of pollution in the watershed. Additionally, the state must provide 

assurance that the proposed watershed project will fully address the water quality 
37

problem within one grant period. In meeting these conditions, the state will ensure that 

multiple smaller problems are not dealt with in a piecemeal fashion when they are 

actually part of a larger water quality problem involving multiple pollution sources in 

the watershed.

iii. Types of Staff Activities Eligible for Watershed Project Funding

States may use watershed project funds to support all eligible activities that implement a WBP or 

acceptable alternative plan. This includes funds to support staff for time spent directly 

implementing a WBP or acceptable alternative plan.12 As watershed project implementation is, 

for the most part, a locally-driven and managed process, EPA expects that the majority of staff 

supported with watershed project funds will be local staff. To the extent that state staff play a 

direct role in implementing watershed projects (see below for a list of examples of eligible staff 

activities), these staff activities may be eligible for watershed project funding. As described 

below, state staff time spent providing watershed project oversight (e.g., managing subgrantee 

work plans, progress reports, project deliverables) or managing other statewide NPS efforts (e.g., 

NPS program coordination, statewide NPS education and outreach, general NPS water quality 

monitoring) is not eligible for watershed project funding, so must be supported with NPS 

program funds.

The following lists provide examples of the types of staff activities that may be eligible for 

watershed project funding. As all activities are ultimately contingent on EPA approval of the 

state § 319 grant work plan, EPA requires that work plans clearly describe all proposed staff 

activities to be supported with § 319 funds, including a description of how watershed projectfunded staff will directly implement a WBP or acceptable alternative plan.

Watershed project funds may be used for staff time spent providing technical assistance in the 

prioritization and implementation of BMPs, including but not limited to activities such as:

Implementing a local cost share program to fund BMPs in critical areas described in 

the WBP or acceptable alternative plan.

Providing one-on-one technical assistance to confirm landowner participation in 

watershed project(s) and to determine which suite of BMPs are most appropriate to 

achieve water quality targets articulated in a WBP or acceptable alternative plan. 

Providing technical expertise with siting and designing BMPs.

Tracking implementation efforts in the watershed to evaluate progress towards the 

water quality targets in the WBP or acceptable alternative plan.

In addition, watershed project funds may be used for staff time spent implementing watershed 

restoration and/or protection projects through activities such as:

Providing coordination support among key partners in addressing NPS pollution 

within the watershed.

 

12 Where a single § 319 project funds both the development AND initial implementation of a WBP or acceptable 

alternative plan, a state may use watershed project funding for the component(s) of the project aimed at 

implementing the WBP or acceptable alternative plan.
38

Leveraging and targeting other state, private, and non-§ 319 federal funds in the 

watershed. 

Conducting targeted local education/outreach events (such as technology transfer 

workshops) that promote the voluntary implementation of BMPs.

Providing technical assistance to support the implementation of a watershed 

restoration or watershed protection project.

Subgrantee time spent managing project work plans, deliverables, reimbursements, 

modifications, and reporting for watershed project(s).

Water quality results monitoring to assess the effectiveness of on-the-ground 

activities to improve water quality as part of the implementation of a completed 

WBP or acceptable alternative plan, regardless of the entity conducting this 

monitoring.13

Monitor water quality results in NWQI watersheds including, if necessary, in cases 

where a WBP has not been developed.

C. NPS Program Funds

NPS program funds comprise up to 50% of the total state § 319 funding allocation and may be 

used for the full range of activities to support the goals of the state’s approved NPS management 

program within the parameters provided by these guidelines and other applicable statutory, 

regulatory, and administrative criteria. This includes all activities eligible for watershed project 

funding, such as projects to implement watershed-based plans for the restoration of impaired 

waters. As with watershed project funds, states may use NPS program funds to support eligible 

NPS activities at the state level or through § 319 subgrants. These funds may be used for nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, 

education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects to achieve implementation 

of best management practices and water quality goals. Under these guidelines all planning 

activities funded by § 319, including the development of WBPs and TMDLs, must be conducted 

using NPS program funds. Given the critical role watershed planning can play in effectively 

guiding project implementation, EPA encourages states to develop WBPs or acceptable 

alternative plans to guide watershed projects funded with NPS program funds, as well as with 

other non-§ 319 funds. NPS program funds may also be used for protection of unimpaired/high 

quality waters including healthy watersheds assessments, actions, and leveraging of other 

sources of funding for watershed protection.

D. National Water Quality Initiative

To support the NWQI in fiscal year 2014 (and subsequent years in which the NWQI continues) 

states with NWQI watersheds will devote sufficient § 319 resources in their grant work plans to 

coordinate with NRCS on selection of such watersheds. States with NWQI watersheds 

recommended by the state water quality agency will plan for and provide appropriately designed 

and timed water quality monitoring in selected watersheds where circumstances are aligned to 

assess the effects of conservation practices. EPA will elaborate on these expectations and provide 

 

13 Baseline monitoring, monitoring to identify sources or characterize a watershed, and monitoring to support the 

development of a WBP or TMDL are not eligible for watershed project § 319 funding.
39

proposed selection criteria for watersheds to be monitored in forthcoming guidance and technical 

information. States are encouraged to use their existing monitoring and QA/QC approaches. 

Monitoring approaches should consider the extent of conservation practices put in place in the 

watershed and the lag time between adoption of conservation practices and expected water 

quality results. 

E. Monitoring Activities 

States may use § 319 funds for the following eligible NPS monitoring activities:

NPS program funding may be used for monitoring in specific waterbodies consistent with 

the state NPS management program to (1) identify nonpoint sources of pollution, (2) 

support the development of a WBP or acceptable alternative plan, or a NPS or mixedsource TMDL, or (3) evaluate the restoration of NPS-impaired waters following 

implementation of NPS pollution control project(s) funded by § 319 or other sources.

Watershed project funding may be used for water quality results monitoring to assess the 

effectiveness of on-the-ground activities to improve water quality (e.g., pollutant loading 

trend analysis) as part of the implementation of a completed WBP or acceptable 

alternative plan, regardless of the entity conducting this monitoring. 

Both NPS program and watershed project funding may be used to monitor water quality 

results in NWQI watersheds including, if necessary, in cases where a WBP has not been 

developed.

Monitoring that is not targeted toward identifying nonpoint sources of pollution, developing a 

WBP or TMDL, or assessing the impact of NPS pollution control activities is ineligible and may 

not be supported with either NPS program or watershed project funds.

F. TMDL Development Activities

NPS program funds may be used for the development of NPS-only and mixed source TMDLs. 

EPA strongly encourages states to prioritize § 319-funded TMDL development in NPS priority 

watersheds (identified in the state’s NPS management program) where local partners are poised 

to plan and implement management strategies sufficient to achieve the TMDL load reductions in 

the near future. As discussed in section II.D.ii of these guidelines, it is desirable for states to 

integrate TMDL and WBP development to achieve greater efficiencies in addressing the 

common elements required in these planning documents. 

In order to ensure § 319-funded TMDLs have maximum utility for informing and facilitating the 

implementation of NPS projects, as a condition of using § 319 funds to develop TMDLs, the 

state will include the following supplemental information to support the load allocations 

specified in the TMDL: (1) an identification of total NPS existing loads and total NPS load 

reductions necessary to meet water quality standards, by source type; (2) a detailed identification 

of the causes and sources of NPS pollution by source type to be addressed in order to achieve 

the load reductions specified in the TMDL (e.g., acres of various row crops, number and size of 

animal feedlots, acres and density of residential areas); and (3) an analysis of the NPS 

management measures by source type expected to be implemented to achieve the necessary load 
40

reductions, with the recognition that adaptive management may be necessary during 

implementation. 

Provision of this supplemental information will facilitate the development of WBPs by providing 

a sufficiently detailed assessment to comprise elements (a) and (b), and parts of element (c) of 

the WBP, at least for the portions of the watershed to which the TMDL applies. (See appendix C 

for a description of WBP elements.) This will also promote greater efficiency in integration of 

TMDLs and WBPs in that states will be able to use this additional information submitted with 

the TMDL to inform the WBP. Because the submission of this additional information is a § 319 

NPS program requirement, the information provided may be reviewed for adequacy by EPA 

regional NPS program staff as part of the grant oversight process. Such review is separate from 

the review by EPA regional staff pursuant to Clean Water Act § 303(d) and EPA’s TMDL 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 130.7, of the proposed TMDLs submitted by states. 

EPA encourages state NPS staff to work with state TMDL staff during TMDL development. 

NPS staff can bring knowledge of BMP effectiveness and feasibility to ensure that NPS load 

reduction goals in the TMDL are achievable. Additionally, coordination between the two 

programs will provide a smoother transition from development of the TMDL to its 

implementation.

G. Exemption from 50 Percent Watershed Project Funding Requirement for 

Substantial State Fund Leveraging

EPA recognizes and expects that all states devote and leverage significant non-federal resources 

in the course of implementing their NPS management program. This is required through the 40% 

non-federal match for each § 319 grant, and leveraging well beyond match is expected as a best 

practice for implementation of state NPS management programs. This expectation is articulated 

in EPA’s guidance Key Components of an Effective State Nonpoint Source Management 

Program (see appendix A). Most states routinely engage a wide array of state programs and 

agencies, federal programs, and local stakeholders in the implementation of their NPS programs, 

leveraging staff and funds to address NPS pollution problems. In fact, the § 319 success stories 

demonstrate that this type of sustained partnership building and leveraging is foundational to 

achieving water quality results.

This exemption provision applies to states that go well beyond this expected level of funds 

leveraging. To encourage leveraging of CWSRF and other state or local funding sources, these 

guidelines provide an exemption to the 50% watershed project funding allocation requirement 

for states that invest substantial state and/or local funding towards NPS watershed project 

implementation as defined by these guidelines. If a state qualifies for this exemption, federal 

watershed project funds allocated to the state may be used for the full range of activities to 

implement approved state NPS management programs, subject to these guidelines. To qualify for 

this exemption, states must demonstrate that state or local funding equivalent to the state’s total 

federal § 319 allocation (i.e., twice the total amount of a state’s watershed project funds) will be 

used for implementing WBPs or acceptable alternative plans for watershed restoration and/or 

protection projects aligned with the priorities described in the state NPS management program. 
41

Consistent with the greater emphasis in these guidelines on watershed implementation, EPA 

wants to ensure that this exemption results in more, not less, on-the-ground implementation of 

watershed projects. If local funds are used to meet this exemption, the state must have a 

mechanism in place to ensure that the projects will meet the goals of the watershed project 

funding requirement, and that the projects will be completed.

As expected with § 319 funded projects, states must include all of the state or locally funded 

projects used to meet this exemption in the annual § 319 grant work plans. Additionally, all state 

or locally funded projects used to meet this exemption must be reported in EPA’s Grants 

Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) in the same manner as § 319 funded projects and all 

nationally-mandated elements are required for these projects. 

No federal funds may be counted toward this leveraging exemption. However, “recycled” 

CWSRF funds14 may be used after they have been loaned and paid back to the state. (Note that 

CWSRF funds can only be used for CWSRF eligible activities.) Other federal funding for NPS 

projects, such as USDA’s Farm Bill resources, may not be used to meet this exemption. Nonfederal funds used to meet the required 40% match for the § 319 grant award may not be used to 

meet this exemption.

H. § 319 Grant Work Plan Requirements

§ 319 of the Clean Water Act provides that § 319 grants are to be made to assist the states in 

implementing state NPS management programs. The state grant work plan must be designed to 

“implement” the approved state NPS management program. Each funded program activity or 

project in the state grant work plan must lead to accomplishment of management program 

objectives identified in the updated state NPS management program. State grant work plans must 

link the funded activities or projects to the relevant element(s) of the state NPS management 

program. State grant work plans must comply with all applicable EPA orders, policies, and 

guidelines/guidance.

For each of the § 319 grant projects and activities proposed, the state grant work plan should 

include a brief and concise synopsis explaining the state's strategy for using § 319 funds in the 

current fiscal year. This synopsis should outline the following:

The problems to be addressed; the task’s goals and objectives; 

The lead implementing agency and other agencies that will be authorized to expend 

project funds; 

The types of measures or practices that will be implemented; 

The projected implementation schedule; 

The outputs to be produced; and 

The environmental outcomes supported by the tasks, as well as the indicators and/or 

other performance measures that will be used to evaluate success.

 

14 “Recycled” CWSRF funds are funds that have been loaned by the state and subsequently repaid by the borrower 

to the state.
42

Activities funded with § 319 watershed project funds should be clearly identified as such in the 

state work plan. The state work plan synopsis should provide references to locate the WBP or 

acceptable alternative plan for the project including online sources where available. Additionally, 

work plans must identify the water quality targets, anticipated outcomes and outputs of the 

selected projects.

State work plans must include well-defined outputs and outcomes to the maximum extent 

practicable. Outputs for activities should always be quantified whenever it is practicable to do so 

(e.g., all on-the-ground implementation projects must have quantified outputs). States that 

include all or a portion of their § 319 funds in a Performance Partnership Grant should note that 

their work plan is required by regulation to describe each significant category of NPS activity to 

be addressed and the state work plan outcomes and outputs to be produced for each category. 

(See 40 CFR 35.268(d)(4) at ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.) Outputs for all activities, including those 

funded through the NPS program funds, should be linked to water quality outcomes. It is not 

sufficient to describe the funding of state or local staff positions to implement the state NPS 

program. Staff time should be described in support of a specific outcome or activity that is 

geared toward water quality results.

EPA regions must ensure state grant work plans negotiated under § 319 follow all relevant EPA 

policies, including EPA Order 5700.7, Environmental Results Under Assistance Agreements, 

GPI 11-03, State Grant Workplans and Progress Reports, and GPI 12-06, Timely Obligation, 

Award and Expenditure of EPA Grant Funds.

I. State NPS Management Program Updates

As described in section III, EPA expects states to maintain current and relevant NPS 

management programs. EPA therefore requires states to review and update their NPS 

management programs every five years. Updates do not require wholesale revisions unless 

significant program changes warrant a major revision. Instead, updates should target the parts of 

the program that are out-of-date. At a minimum, EPA requires updating the goals, objectives and 

annual milestones, so that they remain current and relevant for achieving water quality goals. For 

more guidance on NPS management program updates see appendix A.

J. CZARA Set Aside

States that have chosen to develop state coastal zone management programs under the Coastal 

Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 are required to develop and implement state coastal 

nonpoint pollution control programs (CNPCPs) under CZARA. CZARA requires these CNPCPs 

to be implemented through a state’s NPS management program administered under § 319, as 

well as through updates to state coastal zone management programs. For any state that has 

developed a coastal zone management program, but which has not yet completed development of 

an approvable CNPCP, the state will set aside, at a minimum, the lesser amount of five percent 

of its federal allocation or $100,000 in § 319 funds annually to complete the development of an 

approvable program. This requirement may be met on an average annual basis—for example, a 

§ 319 funded project that commits triple the state’s annual minimum set-aside in one grant year

will also meet set-aside requirements for the following two grant years (provided § 319 funding 
43

allocations do not significantly increase in those years). This set-aside requirement shall be in 

place until EPA and NOAA have fully approved a state’s CNPCP. This set aside shall not apply 

to any state that has not been issued a Findings document for a new or re-established CNPCP or 

for the period prior to the expiration of any federally-placed conditions on a new or reestablished CNPCP. EPA shall allot this set aside prior to determining the split between the 

watershed project funds and NPS program funds; that is, the set aside is not subject to the split 

between watershed implementation and program implementation. States must detail the use of 

this set aside in their annual § 319 grant work plans to describe how it will support advancement 

towards full program approval under CZARA.

K. Reporting Requirements

i. Background on Reporting Requirements

All § 319(h) grants are subject to EPA's general grant regulations in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35 

(ecfr.gpoaccess.gov), which specify a variety of basic grant reporting requirements for awarding 

grants to states and localities. The grant regulations outline a range of administrative reporting 

requirements, including performance and financial reports.

In addition to the broad rules specified in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35, § 319 contains two significant 

provisions that are specifically focused on reporting for the § 319 program:

§ 319(h)(10) authorizes EPA to request information, data and reports as necessary to 

determine a state's continuing eligibility to receive § 319 grants.

§ 319(h)(11) requires states to report annually on their progress in meeting the 

schedule of milestones contained in their NPS management programs, and to report 

available information on reductions of NPS pollutant loadings and on improvements 

to water quality resulting from implementation of NPS management programs.

EPA regions and states should work together to assure that appropriate reporting requirements 

are incorporated into each grant, either through specific grant conditions, or within the work 

plan. (See appendix F for a list of nationally consistent conditions for § 319 grants.) The specific 

reporting requirements for § 319 grants are discussed immediately below. EPA regions and states 

should assess the effectiveness of the reporting process and determine annually if adjustments or 

modifications are necessary.

In general, reporting should be sufficiently detailed to enable a reviewer to ascertain whether 

outputs and milestones are being achieved on schedule, to identify any problems that may be 

arising in carrying out tasks in the grant work plan, to identify corrective actions to address such 

problems expeditiously, and to adequately account for all federal funds expended.

ii. Reporting Procedures and the Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS)

The Grants Reporting and Tracking System (GRTS) is an online database which enables states 

and EPA regions to fulfill § 319 grant reporting requirements (www.epa.gov/nps/grts). This 

comprehensive database of NPS program information is used to track § 319 program activity and 
44

information, enhance the understanding of NPS projects and programs, and provide a basis for 

responding to inquiries from Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, the Government 

Accountability Office, state NPS program staff, nonprofit organizations, the public, and other 

federal, state and local agencies. GRTS information aids in the accountability of the program, the 

transparency of the funds being awarded and leveraged, and the successes being achieved.

States are required to use GRTS to report all nationally mandated elements15 described in the 

most recent GRTS memorandum located on the GRTS website (www.epa.gov/nps/grts). The 

mandated elements are comprised of parameters that EPA needs in order to successfully account 

for accomplishments of the § 319 program. GRTS has the capacity to accept additional 

information on state programs and projects beyond the mandated elements outlined in the most 

recent GRTS guidance. States may, if they choose, upload copies of WBPs (or acceptable

alternative plans), project implementation plans, or other documents such as photographs, 

evaluations, and invoices into the GRTS system. 

States may also choose to allow subgrantees that receive § 319 funds to directly enter data into 

GRTS, thereby reducing the state’s own reporting burden. States are responsible for the quality 

of any data entered into GRTS by any subgrantee, and must adopt practices to ensure this 

accuracy. States are encouraged to work with EPA regions on development of such practices.

Additionally, states are encouraged to take advantage of non-mandated fields within GRTS as a 

means for more complete data management and project reporting.

EPA regions are encouraged to work with their states to design reporting procedures utilizing 

GRTS, which will promote efficiency and eliminate duplication of work. States may also attach 

appropriate portions of their § 319(h)(11) annual report as well as information needed by EPA 

regions to make annual performance and progress determinations as required by § 319(h)(8) and 

these guidelines in GRTS. Specifics should be discussed with the appropriate EPA region.

EPA will be enhancing GRTS to incorporate improved tracking and reporting requirements. EPA 

will communicate with the states on the development of these enhancements and will ensure 

adequate notification, training and direction is provided. EPA intends to ensure that any new 

financial reporting requirements implemented through updates to GRTS are consistent with PPG 

regulations. The goal of these enhancements is to improve tracking and reporting while 

minimizing reporting burden to the states and/or sub-state organizations. GRTS updates will 

include the following elements:

Tracking the proportion of watershed project funds spent on restoration and 

protection activities.

Tracking of projects funded using the required 40% non-federal match. In select cases 

where a state is unable to report on specific accounting of state match, states will be 

asked to report all other mandated elements, as outlined in the most recent GRTS 

guidance.

Tracking of all federal § 319 and state-match funded projects and activities funded as 

a result of a state’s request for exemption from the 50% watershed project funding 

 

15 PPG states will not be required to track specific fund expenditures via GRTS under the PPG.
45

requirement. States exercising this exemption will be required to report all mandated 

elements for these activities.

The guidance on GRTS reporting and tracking will also be updated as a separate process from 

these guidelines. For the most up-to-date guidance pertaining to GRTS reporting and tracking 

visit the GRTS website (www.epa.gov/nps/grts) or contact the National GRTS coordinator.

Since GRTS is an official reporting vehicle for programs or projects conducted by states under 

§ 319(h) grants, a state's cost to enter data and otherwise utilize GRTS is eligible for NPS 

program funding. Regions and states should work together to ensure that sufficient resources are 

available to meet reporting requirements and support needs. Examples of GRTS support needs 

include: providing adequate staff support; purchasing necessary equipment, materials, and 

supplies (including high-speed data switches or other links that enable fast and efficient transfer 

of data to and from GRTS); and attending GRTS workshops and participating in GRTS training 

opportunities.

In many cases GRTS-related activities (e.g., estimating and entering load reductions and 

programmatic information from a project) can be considered a program activity and need not be 

counted toward the 10% cap on administrative costs. (See section IX.Q.)

iii. Annual Reports

§ 319(h)(11) requires states to report annually on progress in meeting the schedule of milestones 

contained in their NPS management programs, and, to the extent information is available, report 

reductions in NPS pollutant loadings and improvements in water quality resulting from program 

implementation. This information may be provided in the format suggested immediately below. 

States may wish to use GRTS to meet some of their annual reporting requirements. 

A brief summary of progress, including evidence/examples, in making progress 

toward meeting approved milestones and the short and long-term goals and objectives 

identified in the state NPS management program.

A matrix displaying milestones from the current year for the approved state NPS 

management program with the following information for each milestone:

o Applicable project or program

o Scheduled project completion date

o Percent completed

o Leveraged funds

A discussion of the extent to which federal agencies, lands and activities within the 

state are supporting the state in meeting approved milestones.

A summary of the available information on the extent of reductions in NPS loadings 

achieved as a result of NPS program implementation. (More detailed information 

should be provided through GRTS.)

A summary of the available information on the improvement in water quality 

(including aquatic habitat quality) as a result of NPS program implementation. This 

can address, for example, progress towards water quality standards, TMDL load 
46

reductions implemented, trends in aquatic biology or other measures of progress used 

by the state. (More detailed information should be provided through the GRTS.)

Where information is not yet available on load reductions and water quality 

improvement for waters or watersheds where implementation is underway, surrogate 

measures of environmental progress should be used and progress should be reported 

in terms of the degree or percentage of completion of the project.

In the past, some states have chosen to include additional information in their annual report, 

using the report as a means of assessing progress to date and the need to modify the program,

providing case studies of particular projects, and conveying information to a broader audience on 

the activities being conducted by the state. States may wish to include the following types of 

information in their reports, or to include such information on their websites and refer to the 

information in their reports:

Brief case studies of any particularly successful NPS control efforts.

Information on increased public awareness of NPS pollution and engagement in 

addressing it.

Copies of products produced by the state program (e.g., outreach materials or BMP 

documents).

Successful efforts to integrate and align Clean Water Act programs to better deliver 

water quality results, or other especially successful partnerships.

iv. Grantee Performance Reports

40 CFR 31.40(b)(1) requires states to submit performance reports on the status of § 319 grants. 

At a minimum, states should submit these reports on an annual basis by a date agreed to by the 

EPA region and the state. Final reports are due 90 days after the expiration or termination of 

grant agreement, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 31. (The full Code of Federal Regulations can be 

found online at ecfr.gpoaccess.gov.) Performance reports should include at a minimum:

Performance/milestone summary: A listing of major program and project 

accomplishments for the period (based on the project and program milestones or 

commitments contained in the approved work plans, grant agreements, or special 

terms and conditions), as well as progress made toward meeting future milestones. 

The state may accomplish some or this entire reporting requirement through its 

annual report, as discussed above.

 Slippage reports: Provide reasons for delays in meeting scheduled 

milestones/commitments and discuss what actions (state, federal or other) will be 

taken to resolve any current or anticipated problems.

 Additional pertinent information including, when appropriate, analysis and 

explanation of cost overruns, unanticipated events/consequences, etc.

v. Federal Financial Reports

40 CFR § 31.41(b) (ecfr.gpoaccess.gov) requires grantees to submit federal financial reports 

using Standard Form 425 or 425(a) to report the status of funds under each grant. At a minimum, 
47

states should submit financial reports annually. Final financial reports are due within 90 days 

after the expiration or termination of the grant agreement. 

vi. STORET

EPA requires states to enter their water quality monitoring data, for data collected in a waterbody 

as a part of the implementation of a § 319 project, into EPA's “storage and retrieval” (STORET) 

data system. All water quality data generated with § 319 funding, either directly or by sub-award, 

are required to be transmitted into the STORET data warehouse using either the Water Quality 

Exchange (WQX) or WQXweb. Water quality data that are appropriate for STORET include 

physical, chemical, and biological sample results for water, sediment and fish tissue. The data 

may include toxicity data, microbiological data, and the metrics and indices generated from 

biological and habitat data. WQX is the water data schema associated with the EPA, State and 

Tribal Exchange Network. More information about WQX, WQXweb, and the STORET 

warehouse, including tutorials, can be found at www.epa.gov/storet.

vii. Reporting and Record-Keeping for Subgrantees

Just as the grant agreement specifies outputs and milestones to be achieved by the states, states 

should assure that agreements with subgrantees specify outputs, milestones, and reporting and 

record keeping requirements. As indicated in the preceding section, states may include in these 

agreements a provision requiring the subgrantees to enter data into STORET and GRTS. Access 

for subgrantees to GRTS data entry should be arranged between the state and EPA region. It is 

the state’s responsibility to review data entered into GRTS for accuracy and the state must adopt 

practices to ensure data reliability.

Where a subgrantee provides a portion of the state's match, the state should ensure that adequate 

records are kept with respect to that portion. 40 CFR 31.41(a)(2) (ecfr.gpoaccess.gov) specifies 

that grantees shall not impose more burdensome requirements on subgrantees than they are 

subject to themselves. 

L. States Must Demonstrate Satisfactory Progress

§ 319(h)(8) of the Clean Water Act provides that no § 319 grant may be made to a state in any 

fiscal year unless EPA determines that the state has made satisfactory progress in the preceding 

fiscal year in meeting the schedule specified in its NPS management program.

EPA regions must determine, based on an examination of state activities, reports, reviews, and 

other documents, as well as discussions with the state in the previous year, whether the state's 

progress for the previous fiscal year in meeting the schedule set forth in its NPS management 

program was satisfactory. 

EPA regions must include in the § 319 grant funding recommendation, or separate document 

such as a grant issuance cover letter, a written determination that the state has made satisfactory 

progress during the previous fiscal year in meeting the schedule of milestones specified in the 

state’s NPS management program. The EPA regions must include brief explanations to support 
48

these determinations. Starting in fiscal year 2012, EPA has established a practice of conducting 

these satisfactory progress determinations within the broader context of annual performance and 

progress determinations. 

Grants reporting requirements are discussed in the preceding section. Since § 319(h)(11) requires 

each state to report “on an annual basis concerning... its progress in meeting the schedule of 

milestones,” these annual reports are expected to provide the written information needed by the 

EPA regions to determine whether the states have made satisfactory progress.

M. Obligate Funds Within One Year

§ 319(b)(6) of the Clean Water Act contains a requirement for state obligation16 of funds within 

one year. EPA has interpreted § 319(h)(6) to provide that § 319 funds granted to a state shall 

remain available for obligation by the state for one year from the date of grant award. For 

example, grant funds awarded to a state on December 1, 2013, remain available for obligation 

until December 1, 2014. The amount of any such funds that cannot be obligated by one year 

from the grant award shall, under § 319(h)(6), be available to EPA for granting to other states. 

This requirement is intended to apply to obligations for sub-awards or contracts, and not to 

internal, staff-related costs.

N. Non-federal Share 40 Percent or Greater

§ 319(h)(3) provides: “The federal share of the cost of each management program implemented 

with federal assistance ...in any fiscal year shall not exceed 60 percent of the cost incurred by 

the state in implementing such management program and shall be made on the condition that the 

non-federal share is provided from non-federal sources.” The match need not be on an item-byitem basis; rather, it is a single figure that covers the entire non-federal share of the costs of 

implementing a § 319 -funded state grant work plan. The non-federal match does not need to be 

contributed at the time of the grant award, but the funds must be contributed as needed to meet 

the schedules established in the work plan milestones, and must occur during the project period 

of the grant award. EPA regions must verify that grantees have satisfied the match requirements 

upon review and submittal of the grantee's final federal financial report.

“Recycled” Clean Water State Revolving Funds under Title VI of the Clean Water Act can be 

used to provide a match for § 319 grants. These are funds that have been loaned by the state and 

subsequently repaid by the borrower to the state. The repaid funds are then recycled by the Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund program to provide loans that fund other water quality projects. 

These recycled funds are not treated as federal funds for the purposes of match and therefore are 

eligible to be used as match for § 319 funds, provided that they, like any other § 319 match 

funds, are used to implement the approved § 319 state NPS management program.

 

16 For the purpose of these guidelines, “state obligation” is when the state creates a definite liability against the 

state’s § 319 grant award. For many states, this occurs when the subgrants and contracts are executed.
49

O. Cost Sharing for Demonstration Projects

§ 319(h)(7) provides that states may use § 319 funds to provide financial assistance to “persons” 

if the costs are related to implementing “demonstration projects.” EPA does not interpret this 

provision to mean that a BMP or management measure may be funded in only one location. A 

successful or potentially successful approach may need to be assessed and demonstrated in many 

locations to indicate its widespread utility in a variety of hydro-geological and sociological 

settings. Moreover, projects should be implemented in a variety of locations within each state so 

that they may in fact provide education, information, and outreach to others who may wish to 

avail themselves of the same approaches used in the projects.

In particular, EPA does not believe that Congress intended to preclude the funding of 

demonstration watershed projects that may require the state to share the cost of a particular 

practice or set of practices at a number of sites within the watershed in order to demonstrate the 

overall effectiveness of the adopted approach in solving the water quality problem. EPA's and 

the states' experiences have demonstrated that watershed problems cannot generally be solved 

without implementing a comprehensive plan with appropriate measures and practices at 

appropriate sites throughout the watershed. Each state needs to continue to implement 

watershed-scale projects that demonstrate how to successfully implement WBPs to restore and 

protect watersheds. 

To ensure widespread implementation of BMPs in demonstration projects in high priority 

watersheds, we encourage states to supplement § 319 cost-share to individuals with additional 

cost-share from state funds, as well as to work with other funding authorities and persons that 

can contribute resources. Where such an approach is followed, the total cost-share to an 

individual from § 319, state and other federal (e.g. USDA) funds may not exceed 100% of the 

total cost of the practice.

P. States Must Maintain Level of Effort

§ 319(h)(9) of the Clean Water Act requires any state applying for § 319 grants to establish and 

maintain its aggregate annual level of state NPS pollution control expenditures for improving 

water quality at the average level of such expenditures in fiscal years 1985 and 1986. This is 

referred to as the state's “Maintenance of Effort” (MOE) requirement. The MOE is based on 

fiscal years 1985 and 1986 investments and is based on expenditures by the lead state agency or 

agencies responsible for the state's NPS pollution control activities. Federal funds may not be 

included in calculating the MOE base level.

Calculation of expenditures is based on activities of the state lead NPS agency or 

agencies responsible for the state's NPS pollution control activities, not on what might 

be termed related activities of other state agencies with primary missions other than 

NPS control. For example, if the state water quality agency and agricultural agency 

both have specific NPS water quality control programs, these should be counted in 

the MOE. State soil conservation programs having water quality improvement or 

maintenance as a primary objective also should be included in a state's MOE.
50

The MOE base level or annual level cannot include the MOE or matching 

expenditures for other federal programs, such as § 106, § 319, § 205(j)(5), § 314, and 

§ 117.

Determination of whether the state expenditures meet the MOE level for purposes of 

awarding a § 319 grant will be based on the grantee expenditures projected in the 

grant application. (The state will report whether it has met its MOE requirements in 

its final federal financial report at the end of the budget year.)

Q. Cap on Administrative Costs

Pursuant to § 319(h)(12), administrative costs in the form of salaries, overhead, or indirect costs 

for services provided and charged against activities and programs carried out with the grant shall 

not exceed 10% of the grant award. The costs of implementing enforcement and regulatory 

activities, education, training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology 

transfer are not subject to this limitation. Activities, subawards, and projects that fall under the 

six exempted categories listed above are not required to track administrative costs for the 

purposes of this provision. 

In many cases GRTS-related activities (e.g., estimating and entering load reductions and 

programmatic information from a project) can be considered a program activity and do not need 

to be counted toward this 10% cap on administrative costs. 

X. Management and Oversight of § 319 Grants

In conducting oversight activities, EPA will rely to a significant extent on information and 

reports provided by the state as well as data entered into STORET and GRTS. Relevant 

information includes the updated state NPS management program, the annual report required by 

§ 319(h)(11), the annual grant work plan along with grant progress reports, references in annual 

work plans to WBPs and other plans guiding § 319-funded projects, and reported load reductions 

and water quality improvements under measures WQ-9 and WQ-10. EPA will contact states if 

additional information is needed. In addition to reviewing reports, EPA regions will confer at 

least annually with each state to discuss progress in implementing the state NPS management 

program. EPA regions may also conduct periodic reviews of a state’s NPS management 

program.

Of primary importance is: the discussion of state progress in updating and implementing state 

NPS management programs; submitting annual work plans that link to the goals and milestones 

in the state NPS management programs; developing work plans that represent an appropriate 

balance of staffing, programmatic activities and projects to meet the goals of the state NPS 

management programs; implementing WBPs or acceptable alternative plans; and achieving onthe-ground results. EPA regions will review and approve revised state NPS management 

programs. EPA regions should also review and discuss with the state the balance between 

development and implementation of TMDLs and WBPs, and review and provide feedback on a 

portion of WBPs. 
51

EPA headquarters and regions will coordinate to ensure that there is an appropriate level of 

program oversight in the implementation of these revised grant guidelines. EPA headquarters 

will work with regions and states to provide nationally consistent guidance for state NPS 

management programs, annual performance and progress reviews, and other appropriate 

templates or guidance as needed. EPA will also provide updated guidance when the new GRTS 

reporting elements and procedures are finalized. This guidance will be posted on the GRTS 

website (www.epa.gov/nps/grts). Appendix F of these guidelines contains a nationally-consistent 

list of § 319 grant terms and conditions which will be used by the EPA regions as a basis for the 

final terms and conditions contained in each state § 319 grant award.

EPA will use the above reports and information to conduct an annual evaluation of state 

performance and progress. (See section IX.L.) Among other considerations, this review will 

include an assessment of satisfactory progress in meeting the schedule provided in the state’s 

NPS management program as required by § 319(h)(8).

States are encouraged to discuss ways in which EPA can assist in implementing the state NPS 

management program. Types of assistance to be considered include: support for state efforts to 

assess water quality problems and/or project effectiveness; support for development and 

implementation of WBPs; and technical assistance to help the state develop a methodology to 

prioritize watersheds most in need of restoration and protection. 

XI. Grants to Indian Tribes

These guidelines are not directed to tribal NPS management programs. Given the differing 

statutory provisions and approaches applicable to tribal programs, EPA publishes separate NPS 

guidance for tribes. However, we present a brief overview below. For detailed information about 

tribal NPS programs, refer to the Handbook for Developing and Managing Tribal Nonpoint 

Source Pollution Programs (EPA-841-B-10-001, February 2010) as well as additional online 

guidance documents written for tribal NPS programs (www.epa.gov/nps/tribal).

Tribes, like states, must have EPA-approved NPS assessments and management programs (as 

well as approval for treatment in a similar manner as a state) in order to be eligible for § 319(h)

grants. EPA is pleased that, to date, more than 170 tribes have approved NPS assessments and 

management programs. EPA encourages other tribes that have significant NPS pollution 

problems to similarly develop assessments and programs that focus on their highest priority NPS 

problems. While § 319 funds may not be used to develop NPS assessments and management 

programs, other EPA funding programs are available to tribes to develop these documents.

Technical assistance with the development of assessment and management programs is available 

from EPA.

§ 518(f) of the Clean Water Act states that the EPA Administrator may reserve for tribes treated 

similarly to states not more than one-third of one percent of the amount appropriated for any 

fiscal year under § 319. In past fiscal years, Congress has authorized EPA to exceed the 1/3% 

limitation and EPA has done so. EPA will annually inform the tribes as to the amount of funding 

available. To be eligible for § 319 nonpoint source grants, tribes must meet the requirements in
52

§ 518(e) of the Clean Water Act, as well as applicable provisions of EPA's general grant 

regulations in 40 CFR parts 31 and 35 (ecfr.gpoaccess.gov).

Tribes are required to meet the 40% matching and maintenance-of-effort requirements under 

§ 319(h); however, if a tribe can demonstrate financial cause, its match requirement may be 

reduced under certain circumstances. (See guidance for tribal NPS programs at 

www.epa.gov/nps/tribal.)

XII. Waiver Process

Circumstances may arise in which a state believes it has no choice but to develop and submit a 

work plan for a particular year that fails to meet one or more requirements in these guidelines. If 

such circumstances arise, and the state believes the circumstances justify a waiver from one or 

more requirements in these guidelines, the state may submit a request for a waiver to the EPA 

regional water division director. The request should identify the requirement from which a 

waiver is requested; the circumstances requiring the waiver (explaining why the waiver is 

necessary to successfully implement the approved state NPS management program); a 

description of the activities and projects that the state will be implementing in lieu of those 

required by these guidelines; and a commitment to adhere to the guidelines to the greatest extent 

possible. The regional division director may approve the waiver for the year requested with the 

concurrence of the NPS national program manager in EPA’s Office of Water. 

The waiver provision is intended for use only in unusual circumstances. For example, a waiver 

may be considered if national § 319 funding levels are substantially reduced and compliance 

with the guidelines would result in substantially less environmental benefit (nonpoint source 

pollution reduction) than the state’s proposed alternative use of the funds.

This waiver process applies only to the requirements established by these guidelines; it does not 

apply to any statutory or regulatory requirements or requirements in the EPA orders or policies 

referenced in these guidelines. 
53

XIII. Appendices

Appendix A—Key Components of an Effective State Nonpoint Source Management 

Program

This guidance is an update of the nine key elements guidance contained in the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 1997 Guidance for Section 319(h) Grants

(water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/npsguid1.cfm#IIIa), and contains a description of the key 

components that characterize an effective state nonpoint source (NPS) management program. 

The original guidance was developed by EPA with input from state lead NPS control agencies. 

Similarly, during the spring of 2012, EPA convened an EPA-state workgroup to inform section 

319 program improvements; this update was developed with input from this workgroup and 

further refined by comments and input from other states.

EPA expects all states to review and, as appropriate, revise and update their NPS management 

programs every five years. An updated, comprehensive program is critical to the states and EPA. 

It will allow EPA and the states to ensure that section 319 funding, technical support and other 

resources are directed in an effective and efficient manner to support state efforts to address 

water quality issues on a watershed basis. States should refer to these key components during 

review and update of their programs. States will then submit their updated programs to EPA for 

approval.

1. The state program contains explicit short- and long-term goals, objectives and strategies 

to restore and protect surface water and ground water, as appropriate.

The state's long-term goals reflect a strategically focused state NPS management program 

designed to achieve and maintain water quality standards and to maximize water quality benefits. 

The shorter-term objectives consist of activities, with annual milestones, designed to demonstrate 

reasonable progress toward accomplishing long-term goals as expeditiously as possible. Since 

the NPS management program is a longer-term planning document, the annual milestones may 

be more general than are expected in an annual section 319 grant workplan, but are specific 

enough for the state to track progress and for EPA to determine satisfactory progress in 

accordance with section 319(h)(8). Annual milestones in a state’s NPS management program 

describe outcomes and key actions expected each year, e.g., delivering a certain number of WQ10 success stories or implementing projects in a certain number of high priority impaired 

watersheds. The state program includes objectives that address nonpoint sources of surface water 

and ground water pollution as appropriate (including sources of drinking water) in alignment 

with the goals of the Clean Water Act. The objectives include both implementation steps and 

how results will be tracked (e.g., water quality improvements or load reductions).

The state program includes long-term goals and shorter-term (e.g., three- to five-year) objectives 

that are well integrated with other key environmental and natural resource programs, such as 

those described under component #3. State program goals and objectives are periodically revised 

as necessary to reflect progress or problems encountered, strategies to make progress towards 

achieving the goals, and indicators to measure progress.
Appendix A – Continued

54

2. The state strengthens its working partnerships and linkages to appropriate state, 

interstate, tribal, regional, and local entities (including conservation districts), private 

sector groups, citizens groups, and federal agencies.

The state uses a variety of formal and informal mechanisms to form and sustain these 

partnerships. Examples include memoranda of agreement, letters of support, cooperative 

projects, sharing and combining of funds, and meetings to share information and ideas.

The state NPS lead agency works collaboratively with other key state and local NPS entities in 

the coordinated implementation of NPS control measures in high priority watersheds. 

Interagency collaborative teams, NPS task forces, and representative advisory groups can be 

effective mechanisms for accomplishing these linkages, as can more informal but ongoing 

program coordination and outreach efforts. The state works to ensure that its local partners and 

grantees have the capacity to effectively carry out watershed implementation projects funded to 

support its NPS management program.

Further, the state seeks public involvement from local, regional, state, interstate, tribal and 

federal agencies, and public interest groups, industries, academic institutions, private landowners 

and producers, concerned citizens and others as appropriate, to comment on significant proposed 

program changes. This involvement helps ensure that environmental objectives are well 

integrated with those for economic stability and other social and cultural goals.

3. The state uses a combination of statewide programs and on-the-ground projects to 

achieve water quality benefits; efforts are well-integrated with other relevant state and 

federal programs.

The state has the flexibility to design its NPS management program in a manner that is best 

suited to achieve and maintain water quality standards. The state may achieve water quality 

results through a combination of watershed approaches and statewide programs, including 

regulatory authorities, as appropriate. The state NPS management program emphasizes a 

watershed management approach and includes an explanation of the state’s approach to 

prioritizing waters and watersheds to achieve water quality restoration and protection.

The state NPS management program is well integrated with other relevant programs to restore 

and protect water quality, aligning priority setting processes and resources to increase efficiency 

and environmental results. These include the following programs, as applicable:

Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs);

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF);

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) farm bill conservation programs;

state agricultural conservation;

state nutrient framework or strategy

source water protection;

point sources (including stormwater, confined animal feeding operations, and 

enforcement of permitted facilities);

ground water;
Appendix A – Continued

55

drinking water;

clean lakes

wetlands protection;

national estuary program;

coastal nonpoint pollution control program;

pesticide management;

climate change planning;

forestry, both federal (U.S. Forest Service) and state;

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers programs;

and other natural resource and environmental management programs. 

Because of the significant resources potentially available through USDA conservation programs, 

the state makes a strong sustained effort to coordinate and leverage with USDA NRCS. 

Similarly, a state NPS management program is well-integrated and clearly identifies processes to 

incorporate some of the significant resources of the CWSRF loan program for eligible nonpoint 

source activities.

Where applicable, the state NPS management program explains how NPS projects fit into the 

state’s prioritization scheme for CWSRF funding, and describes state efforts to increase the use 

of the state CWSRF for the NPS management program. If there are barriers to prioritization of 

NPS projects, the state NPS management program describes efforts to coordinate with the 

CWSRF program and potential future steps to encourage NPS projects are considered.

If, in reviewing federal programs, the state identifies federal lands and activities that are not 

managed consistently with state nonpoint source program objectives, the state may seek EPA 

assistance to help resolve issues at the federal agency level. Federal programs subject to review 

by the state include the land management programs of the Bureau of Land Management and the 

U.S. Forest Service, USDA's conservation programs, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

waterway programs, as well as development projects and financial assistance programs that are, 

or may be, inconsistent with the state's NPS management program.

As a federal agency, EPA has a role to play in support of the state’s NPS management program 

by working with other federal agencies to enhance their understanding of the significance of 

nonpoint source pollution and of the need to work cooperatively with the state to solve nonpoint 

source problems. Where appropriate, EPA will assist in resolving particular issues that arise 

between the state and federal agencies with respect to federal consistency with the state NPS 

management program. As EPA becomes aware of these issues, EPA works at a national level to 

improve consistency among federal programs.

4. The state program describes how resources will be allocated between (a) abating known 

water quality impairments from NPS pollution and (b) protecting threatened and high 

quality waters from significant threats caused by present and future NPS impacts.

The program describes its approach to addressing the twin demands of remedying waters that the 

state has identified as impaired by NPS pollution and preventing new water quality problems 
Appendix A – Continued

56

from present and reasonably foreseeable future NPS impacts, especially for waters which 

currently meet water quality standards.

With limited resources, the state will likely need to make choices about the relative emphasis on 

restoring impaired waters and protecting high quality waters. The state’s program describes how 

it will approach setting priorities and aligning resources between these two areas of emphasis 

based on their water quality challenges and circumstances. 

5. The state program identifies waters and watersheds impaired by NPS pollution as well as 

priority unimpaired waters for protection. The state establishes a process to assign priority 

and to progressively address identified watersheds by conducting more detailed watershed 

assessments, developing watershed-based plans and implementing the plans.

The state identifies waters impaired by nonpoint source pollution based on currently available 

information (e.g., in reports under sections 305(b), 319(a), 303(d), 314(a), and 320), and revises 

its list periodically as more up-to-date assessment information becomes available. As feasible, 

the state also identifies important unimpaired waters that are threatened or otherwise at risk from 

nonpoint source pollution.

In addition the state identifies the primary categories and subcategories causing the water quality 

impairments, threats, and risks across the state. At regular intervals the state updates the 

identification of waters impaired or threatened by NPS pollution preferably as part of a single 

comprehensive state water quality assessment which integrates reports required by the Clean 

Water Act. The state establishes a process to assign priority and to progressively address 

identified waters and watersheds by conducting more detailed watershed assessments, 

developing watershed-based plans, and implementing the plans. Factors used by the state to 

assign priority to waters and watersheds may include a variety of considerations, for example:

human health considerations including source water protection for drinking water; 

ecosystem integrity, including ecological risk and stressors; 

beneficial uses of the water; 

value of the watershed or ground water area to the public; 

vulnerability of surface or ground water to additional environmental degradation; 

likelihood of achieving demonstrable environmental results; 

degree of understanding of the causes of impairment and solutions capable of restoring 

the water;

implementability (site-specific technical feasibility); 

adequacy of existing water quality monitoring data or future monitoring commitments;

degree to which TMDL allocations made to point sources are dependent on NPS 

reductions being achieved;

extent of partnerships with other federal agencies, states, local public and private 

agencies/organizations and other stakeholders to coordinate resources and actions;

availability and access of funding sources other than section 319(h); and 

readiness to proceed among stakeholders and project partners. 
Appendix A – Continued

57

The state links its prioritization and implementation strategy to other programs and efforts such 

as those listed under component #3. In establishing priorities for ground water activities, the state 

considers wellhead protection areas, ground water recharge areas, and zones of significant 

ground water/surface water interaction, including drinking water sources.

There are different approaches for prioritizing waters for restoration and protection and EPA 

offers several tools to assist. For example, EPA’s Recovery Potential Screening Tool, available

at www.epa.gov/recoverypotential, is useful for comparing restorability of impaired waters 

across various watersheds. Also, the Nitrogen and Phosphorus Pollution Data Access Tool 

(NPDAT), at www.epa.gov/nutrientpollution/npdat, is a GIS-based tool designed to assist in 

identifying priority watersheds to address nutrient pollution.

6. The state implements all program components required by section 319(b) of the Clean 

Water Act, and establishes strategic approaches and adaptive management to achieve and 

maintain water quality standards as expeditiously as practicable. The state reviews and 

upgrades program components as appropriate. The state program includes a mix of 

regulatory, nonregulatory, financial and technical assistance, as needed. 

Under section 319(b) state NPS management programs include all of the following components:

(i) An identification of measures (i.e., systems of practices) that will be used to control NPS 

pollution, focusing on those measures which the state believes will be most effective in 

achieving and maintaining water quality standards. These measures may be individually 

identified or presented in manuals or compendiums, provided that they are specific and are 

related to the category or subcategory of nonpoint sources. They may also be identified as part of 

a watershed approach towards achieving water quality standards, whether locally, within a 

watershed, or statewide;

(ii) An identification of the key programs to achieve implementation of the measures, including, 

as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory programs for enforcement, technical assistance, 

financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects. The 

state is free to decide the best approaches for solving the problems that it identifies under key 

component #5 above. These approaches may include one or all of the following:

watershed or water quality-based approaches aimed at meeting water quality 

standards directly; 

iterative, technology-based approaches based on best management practices or 

measures, applied on either a categorical or site-specific basis; or 

an appropriate mix of these approaches. 

(iii) A description of the processes used to coordinate and, where appropriate, integrate the 

various programs used to implement NPS pollution controls in the state;

(iv) A schedule with goals, objectives, and annual milestones for implementation at the earliest 

practicable date: legal authorities to implement the program; available resources; and 

institutional relationships;
Appendix A – Continued

58

(v) Sources of funding from federal (other than section 319), state, local, and private sources;

(vi) Federal land management programs, development projects and financial assistance 

programs; and

(vii) A description of monitoring and other evaluation programs that the state will conduct to 

help determine short- and long-term NPS management program effectiveness.

In addition, the state incorporates existing baseline requirements established by other 

applicable federal or state laws to the extent that they are relevant. For example, a coastal 

state or territory with an approved coastal zone management program incorporates its approved 

state coastal nonpoint pollution control programs required by section 6217 of the Coastal Zone 

Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of 1990, into its NPS management program since 

CZARA requires implementation through the state’s NPS management program. In this manner, 

the state ensures that this program and other relevant baseline programs are integrated into, and 

consistent with, section 319 programs.

7. The state manages and implements its NPS management program efficiently and 

effectively, including necessary financial management.

The state implements its program to solve its water quality problems as effectively and 

expeditiously as possible, and makes satisfactory progress each year in meeting program goals. 

To help assure that priority water quality problems are addressed cost-effectively and in a timely 

manner, the state includes in its program a process for identifying priority problems and/or 

watersheds, and deploys resources in a timely fashion to address priorities, including any critical 

areas requiring treatment and protection within watersheds.

The state employs appropriate programmatic and financial systems that ensure section 319 

dollars are used efficiently and consistent with its legal obligations, and generally manages all 

section 319 funds to maximize water quality benefits. The state ensures that section 319 funds 

complement and leverage funds available for technical and financial assistance from other 

federal sources and agencies.

8. The state reviews and evaluates its NPS management program using environmental and 

functional measures of success, and revises its NPS management program at least every 

five years.

The state establishes appropriate measures of progress in meeting programmatic and water 

quality goals and objectives identified in key component #1 above. The state also describes a 

monitoring/evaluation strategy and a schedule to measure success in meeting those goals and 

objectives. The state integrates monitoring and evaluation strategies with ongoing federal natural 

resource inventories and monitoring programs.

The state NPS management program is reviewed and revised every five years. The revision is not 

necessarily a comprehensive update unless significant program changes warrant a complete 
Appendix A – Continued

59

revision; instead, an update targets the parts of the program that are out-of-date. At a minimum, 

this includes updating annual milestones and the schedule for program implementation, so that 

they remain current and oriented toward achieving water quality goals.
60

Appendix B—Potential Measures and Indicators of Progress and Success

The following list illustrates optional measures and indicators that states may choose from or add 

to that will help the states and the public measure the progress and success of their programs. 

Some of the examples and categories below are approaches that have been successfully used by 

states and others, and some were identified by EPA regions and state NPS programs (including 

during a measures session at the June 2012 National NPS Program Meeting). Some of the

measures listed below may not be applicable in all locations/settings, and states will decide 

which measures are appropriate to their particular conditions.

1. Water Quality Improvement from Nonpoint Source Controls

a) Number (or percentage) of river/stream miles, lake acres, wetlands, and estuarine and 

coastal square miles that fully meet all water quality standards.

b) Number (or percentage) of river/stream miles, lake acres, wetlands, and estuarine and 

coastal square miles that come into compliance with one or more designated uses (e.g., a 

river segment that is neither fishable nor swimmable becomes fishable), or with one or 

more numeric water quality standard (e.g., achieves a standard for phosphorus while 

continuing to exceed a standard for nitrogen).

c) Opening of previously closed shellfish beds.

d) Lifting of fish consumption advisories.

e) Prevention of new impairments (e.g., number of river miles removed from the 

“threatened” lists, or number of miles of high-quality waters protected).

f) Reduced beach closures.

2. Interim Progress Toward Restored Water Quality and Hydrology

a) Develop environmental “success stories” to document interim progress toward 

restoration, which can be submitted to EPA as type 2 NPS success stories (see 

www.epa.gov/nps/success).

b) Percentage of attainment of watershed specific interim load reduction goals (e.g., interim 

goal of 5,000 lbs/year reduction of phosphorus for a specific watershed). 

c) Percentage of TMDL or WBP-recommended BMPs implemented.

d) Percentage of landowners in a watershed cooperating in the program by implementing 

targeted water quality practices. 

e) Track trends toward watershed-based targets for N, P, TSS, E. coli and/or bacteria in 

rivers. 

f) Track trends toward target trophic status scores (Carlson’s), secchi disk transparency 

depths and chlorophyll-a concentrations in lakes. 

g) Between 20XX and 20XX, the number of streams showing increased flow variability will 

not increase. 

h) Set targets for impervious surfaces within watersheds.

i) Green infrastructure installed within watersheds (e.g., track the number of projects or 

square footage converted to green infrastructure).

j) Number of curb and gutter roadways within watersheds. 

m) Number of watersheds that have or require shoreline buffers.
Appendix B – Continued 

61

3. Protection of High Quality Waters

a) Long-term protection of X acres in priority watersheds by 20XX.

b) Long-term protection projects will prevent of X tons of sediment, Y pounds of nitrogen 

and Z pounds of phosphorus from entering waters of the state by 20XX.

c) No waterbodies or reaches in high quality watersheds will be moved to the nonattainment 

lists due to NPS causes or pollution. 

d) Maintenance of filtration avoidance for certain water supply systems (i.e., no additional 

treatment or alternative sources of drinking water supply). 

e) Specific load reduction or maintenance goals (X lbs. of P per year) in protection oriented 

plans covering high value waters. 

f) Number or percentage of watersheds that hit their protection oriented goals each year. 

g) Improve trends in water quality of waterbodies that are threatened but not yet impaired so 

that the waterbodies remain off the nonattainment list. 

h) Number and type of BMPs implemented at critical source areas (demonstrating effective 

targeting).

i) Length and width of improved or protected shoreline or riparian areas along streams.

j) Stable or improving water quality/trophic status in lakes.

k) Increase in the amount of lake shorelands (length and width) protected or maintained in a 

natural condition.

l) Stable or improving water quality (biocriteria, DO, bacteria) in streams.

4. Nonpoint Source Pollutant Load Reduction

a) Reductions in pollutant loadings (e.g., by pounds or percentage) from nonpoint sources in 

watersheds of impaired/threatened waters.

b) Reductions in pollutant loadings (e.g., by pounds or percentage) from nonpoint sources in 

high-priority watersheds identified by the state’s NPS management program.

c) State-wide reduction in pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources.

d) In the case of NPS pollution which may result from activities conducted in the future, 

prevention or minimization of new loadings, and/or offset of new loadings by reductions 

from existing sources.

5. Implementation of Nonpoint Source Controls

a) Number of measures implemented in watersheds of impaired/threatened waters (e.g., 

number of on-the-ground practices implemented that reflect, for example, the “best 

practicable” approach to solve the identified problem.)

b) Percentage of “needed” measures implemented in watersheds of impaired/threatened 

waters (e.g., where watershed analysis has shown the need to implement measures at 20 

sites, annual progress in implementing a watershed project can be shown by the number of 

BMPs installed).

c) Statistically-based survey of implementation rates (e.g., results of state-approved BMP use 

and effectiveness surveys).

d) Percent of priority ground water addressed by NPS controls.

e) Number (or percent) of measures implemented in source water protection areas.
Appendix B – Continued 

62

6. Public Education, Awareness, and Action

a) Participation rates in education programs specifically directed to solving particular NPS 

pollution problems.

b) Statistically-based survey of public awareness, knowledge, and action to measure changes 

in attitudes and action over time.

c) Participation rates in various NPS activities, such as citizen monitoring and watershed 

resource restoration activities.

d) Participation rates in various public awareness and education efforts.

e) Number of information and education (I/E) “success stories” by 20XX. I/E success stories 

document quantifiable changes in knowledge or behavior related to NPS pollutant issues. 

f) Use statistically-based social monitoring procedures to document a positive change in 

social indicator scores or responses for all I/E projects evaluated.

g) Calculate and track a “measure of local interest” score to assess the diversity and 

productivity of local watershed groups.

7. Program Measures of Success

a) Track number and diversity of partners in statewide NPS plan goals and watershed project 

implementation.

b) Number of new 9-element watershed-based plans reviewed and accepted for funding by 

20XX. 

c) Document the successful completion of categories of planned work (e.g., tracking 

materials developed, reports generated, producer contacts, management measures 

implemented) in a specified in a state’s NPS management program. 
63

Appendix C—Minimum Elements of a Watershed-based Plan

Although many different elements may be included in a watershed plan, EPA has identified nine 

minimum elements that are critical for achieving improvements in water quality. In general, EPA 

requires that nine-element watershed-based plans (WBPs) be developed prior to implementing 

project(s) funded with § 319 watershed project funding. In many cases, state and local groups 

have already developed watershed plans and strategies for their rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, 

estuaries, and coastal waters that address some or all of the nine elements. EPA encourages states 

to use these plans and strategies, where appropriate, as building blocks for developing and 

implementing WBPs. If these existing plans contain all nine elements listed below, they can be 

used to fulfill the WBP requirement for watershed projects. If the existing plans do not address 

all nine elements or do not include the entire watershed planning area, they can still provide 

valuable components to inform, develop, and update WBPs. 

For example, some watershed management plans contain information on hydrology, topography, 

soils, climate, land uses, water quality problems, and management practices needed to address 

water quality problems but lack the quantitative analysis of current pollutant loads or expected 

load reductions from proposed management practices. In this case, the WBP developer could 

incorporate such existing information into the plan to help fulfill the nine WBP elements. If 

separate documents contain information that help meet the nine WBP elements listed below but 

are too lengthy to be included in the WBP, they can be summarized and referenced in the 

appropriate sections of the plan, as long as the information is readily available. 

Note: EPA recognizes that in select cases (outlined in section IX.B.ii of these guidelines) 

alternatives to WBPs can provide an effective roadmap to achieve the water quality goals of a 

§ 319 funded watershed project. These alternative plans do not need to address the nine elements 

listed below, but must include the planning components listed in section IX.B.ii of these 

guidelines. EPA still encourages plan developers to build on prior planning efforts and 

incorporate related information, as described above, when developing these alternative plans. 

Nine Elements of Watershed-based Plans (WBPs)

The nine elements, as well as short explanations of how each element fits in the context of the 

broader WBP, are provided below. Although they are listed as a through i, they do not 

necessarily take place sequentially. For example, element d asks for a description of the technical 

and financial assistance that will be needed to implement the WBP, but this can be done only 

after you have addressed elements e and i.

The level of detail needed to address the nine elements of WBPs will vary in proportion to the 

homogeneity or similarity of land use types and variety and complexity of pollution sources. For 

example, densely developed urban and suburban watersheds often have multiples sources of 

pollution from historic and current activities (Superfund sites, point sources, solid waste 

disposal, leakage from road salt storage, oil handling, stormwater-caused erosion, road 

maintenance, etc.) in addition to some agricultural activities. Plans will be more complex than in 

predominantly rural settings in these cases. For this reason, plans for urban and suburban 

watersheds may need to be developed and implemented at a smaller scale than watersheds with 

agricultural lands of a similar character.
Appendix C – Continued 

64

Element a. Identification of causes of impairment and pollutant sources or groups of similar 

sources that need to be controlled to achieve needed load reductions, and any other goals 

identified in the watershed plan. Sources that need to be controlled should be identified at the 

significant subcategory level along with estimates of the extent to which they are present in the 

watershed (e.g., X number of dairy cattle feedlots needing upgrading, including a rough 

estimate of the number of cattle per facility; Y acres of row crops needing improved nutrient 

management or sediment control; or Z linear miles of eroded streambank needing 

remediation). 

What does this mean?

Your WBP source assessment should encompass the watershed of the impaired waterbody(ies) 

throughout the watershed, and include map(s) of the watershed that locates the major cause(s) 

and source(s) of impairment in the planning area. To address these impairments, you will set 

goals to meet (or exceed) the appropriate water quality standards for pollutant(s) that threaten or 

impair the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the watershed covered in the plan.

This element will usually include an accounting of the significant point and nonpoint sources in 

addition to the natural background levels that make up the pollutant loads causing problems in 

the watershed. If a TMDL or TMDLs exist for the waters under consideration, this element may 

be adequately addressed in those documents. If not, you will need to conduct a similar analysis 

(which may involve mapping, modeling, monitoring, and field assessments) to make the link 

between the sources of pollution and the extent to which they cause the water to exceed relevant 

water quality standards.

Element b. An estimate of the load reductions expected from management measures.

What does this mean?

On the basis of the existing source loads estimated for element a, you will similarly determine

the reductions needed to meet water quality standards. After identifying the various management 

measures that will help to reduce the pollutant loads (see element c below), you will estimate the 

load reductions expected as a result of implementing these management measures, recognizing 

the difficulty in precisely predicting the performance of management measures over time.

Estimates should be provided at the same level as that required in the scale and scope described 

in element a (e.g., the total load reduction expected for dairy cattle feedlots, row crops, eroded 

streambanks, or implementation of a specific stormwater management practice). For waters for 

which TMDLs have been approved or are being developed, the plan should identify and 

incorporate the TMDLs; the plan needs to be designed to achieve the applicable load reductions 

in the TMDLs. Applicable loads for downstream waters should be included so that water 

delivered to a downstream or adjacent segment does not exceed the water quality standards for 

the pollutant of concern at the water segment boundary. The estimate should account for 

reductions in pollutant loads from point and nonpoint sources identified in the TMDL as 

necessary to attain the applicable water quality standards. 
Appendix C – Continued 

65

Element c. A description of the nonpoint source management measures that will need to be 

implemented to achieve load reductions in element b, and a description of the critical areas in 

which those measures will be needed to implement this plan.

What does this mean?

The plan should describe the management measures that need to be implemented to achieve the 

load reductions estimated under element b, as well as to achieve any additional pollution 

prevention goals outlined in the watershed plan (e.g., habitat conservation and protection). 

Pollutant loads will vary even within land use types, so the plan should also identify the critical 

areas17 in which those measures will be needed to implement the plan. This description should be 

detailed enough to guide needed implementation activities throughout the watershed and can be 

greatly enhanced by developing an accompanying map with priority areas and practices. Thought 

should also be given to the possible use of measures that protect important habitats (e.g. 

wetlands, vegetated buffers, and forest corridors) and other non-polluting areas of the watershed. 

In this way, waterbodies would not continue to degrade in some areas of the watershed while 

other parts are being restored. 

Element d. Estimate of the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated 

costs, and/or the sources and authorities that will be relied upon to implement this plan.

What does this mean?

You should estimate the financial and technical assistance needed to implement the entire plan. 

This includes implementation and long-term operation and maintenance of management 

measures, information/education (I/E) activities, monitoring, and evaluation activities. You 

should also document which relevant authorities might play a role in implementing the plan. Plan 

sponsors should consider the use of federal, state, local, and private funds or resources that might 

be available to assist in implementing the plan. Shortfalls between needs and available resources 

should be identified and addressed in the plan. 

Element e. An information and education component used to enhance public understanding 

of the plan and encourage their early and continued participation in selecting, designing, and 

implementing the nonpoint source management measures that will be implemented.

What does this mean?

The plan should include an I/E component that identifies the education and outreach activities or 

actions that will be used to implement the plan. These I/E activities may support the adoption 

and long-term operation and maintenance of management practices and support stakeholder 

involvement efforts. 

Element f. Schedule for implementing the nonpoint source management measures identified 

in this plan that is reasonably expeditious. 

What does this mean?

You should include a schedule for implementing the management measures outlined in your 

watershed plan. The schedule should reflect the milestones you develop in g and you should 

 

17 Critical areas are those producing disproportionately high pollutant loads.
Appendix C – Continued 

66

begin implementation as soon as possible. Conducting baseline monitoring and outreach for 

implementing water quality projects are examples of activities that can start right away. It is 

important that schedules not be “shelved” for lack of funds or program authorities; instead they 

should identify steps towards obtaining needed funds as feasible. 

Element g. A description of interim measurable milestones for determining whether nonpoint 

source management measures or other control actions are being implemented. 

What does this mean?

The WBP should include interim, measurable implementation milestones to measure progress in 

implementing the management measures. These milestones will be used to track implementation 

of the management measures, such as whether they are being implemented according to the 

schedule outlined in element f, whereas element h (see below) will develop criteria to measure 

the effectiveness of the management measures by, for example, documenting improvements in 

water quality. For example, a watershed plan may include milestones for a problem pesticide 

found at high levels in a stream. An initial milestone may be a 30% reduction in measured stream 

concentrations of that pesticide after 5 years and 50 percent of the users in the watershed have 

implemented Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The next milestone could be a 40% reduction 

after 7 years, when 80% of pesticide users are using IPM. The final goal, which achieves the 

water quality standard for that stream, may require a 50% reduction in 10 years. Having these 

waypoints lets the watershed managers know if they are on track to meet their goals, or if they 

need to re-evaluate treatment levels or timelines. 

Element h. A set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are 

being achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water 

quality standards.

What does this mean?

As projects are implemented in the watershed, you will need water quality benchmarks to track 

progress towards attaining water quality standards. The criteria in element h (not to be confused 

with water quality criteria in state regulations) are the benchmarks or waypoints to measure 

against through monitoring. These interim targets can be direct measurements (e.g., fecal 

coliform concentrations, nutrient loads) or indirect indicators of load reduction (e.g., number of 

beach closings). These criteria should reflect the time it takes to implement pollution control 

measures, as well as the time needed for water quality indicators to respond, including lag times 

(e.g., water quality response as it is influenced by ground water sources that move slowly or the 

extra time it takes for sediment bound pollutants to break down, degrade or otherwise be isolated 

from the water column). Appendix B of these guidelines, “Measures and Indicators of Progress 

and Success,” although intended as measures for program success, may provide some examples 

that may be useful. You should also indicate how you will determine whether the WBP needs to 

be revised if interim targets are not met. These revisions could involve changing management

practices, updating the loading analyses, and reassessing the time it takes for pollution 

concentrations to respond to treatment.
Appendix C – Continued 

67

Element i. A monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts 

over time, measured against the criteria established under element h.

What does this mean?

The WBP should include a monitoring component to determine whether progress is being made 

toward attaining or maintaining the applicable water quality standards for the waterbody(ies) 

addressed in the plan. The monitoring program should be fully integrated with the established 

schedule and interim milestone criteria identified above. The monitoring component should be 

designed to assess progress in achieving loading reductions and meeting water quality standards. 

Watershed-scale monitoring can be used to measure the effects of multiple programs, projects, 

and trends over time. Instream monitoring does not have to be conducted for individual BMPs 

unless that type of monitoring is particularly relevant to the project. 

For more detailed information on developing watershed-based plans, please see A Handbook for 

Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters, U.S. EPA, EPA 841-B-08-002 

March 2008, (water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/handbook_index.cfm ). Other resources for watershed 

planning are available on the Watershed Central website - including the Watershed Central Wiki 

and Plan Builder tool at (water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/datait/watershedcentral/index.cfm).
68

Appendix D—State-by-State § 319 Allocation

 This appendix sets forth, for each state, its percentage of the total 

allocation of § 319 dollars each year. To calculate the allocation provided to 

a particular state in a particular year, do the following:

 1. Begin with the total § 319 funding appropriated by Congress for the 

year in question.

 2. Subtract at least 1/3% of the total § 319 appropriation for 

distribution to Indian Tribes. (The Clean Water Act allows EPA to provide 

only up to one-third of one percent of the total 319 appropriation to Tribes. 

However, for each of the past several years, Congress has removed that 

limitation for the year in question, and EPA has provided that $6 million of 

the total § 319 appropriation should be distributed to eligible Tribes. Since 

this depends on annual Congressional appropriations language, the annual 

allocation of § 319 funds to Indian Tribes cannot be reliably predicted.)

 3. Multiply the funds remaining after step #2 by the applicable state 

percentage below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Percentage

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Region 1

Connecticut................................................ 0.98

Maine...................................................... 1.17

Massachusetts.............................................. 1.36

New Hampshire.............................................. 0.76

Rhode Island............................................... 0.68

Vermont.................................................... 0.74

 Region 2

New Jersey................................................. 1.67

New York................................................... 3.40

Puerto Rico................................................ 0.56

Virgin Islands............................................. 0.27

 Region 3

Delaware................................................... 0.72

Dist. Of Col............................................... 0.63

Maryland................................................... 1.34

Pennsylvania............................................... 2.95

Virginia................................................... 1.97

West Virginia.............................................. 1.10

 Region 4

Alabama.................................................... 1.96

Florida.................................................... 3.92

Georgia.................................................... 2.34

Kentucky................................................... 1.71

Mississippi................................................ 1.92

N. Carolina................................................ 2.33

S. Carolina................................................ 1.56

Tennessee.................................................. 1.59

 Region 5

Illinois................................................... 4.12

Indiana.................................................... 2.25

Michigan................................................... 2.93

Minnesota.................................................. 3.46
Appendix D – Continued 

69

Ohio....................................................... 3.04

Wisconsin.................................................. 2.59

 Region 6

Arkansas................................................... 1.97

Louisiana.................................................. 2.44

New Mexico................................................. 1.22

Oklahoma................................................... 1.58

Texas...................................................... 4.75

 Region 7

Iowa....................................................... 2.29

Kansas..................................................... 1.85

Missouri................................................... 2.31

Nebraska................................................... 1.82

 Region 8

Colorado................................................... 1.27

Montana.................................................... 1.33

N. Dakota.................................................. 2.42

S. Dakota.................................................. 1.64

Utah....................................................... 0.92

Wyoming.................................................... 0.98

 Region 9

Arizona.................................................... 1.64

California................................................. 5.34

Hawaii..................................................... 0.77

Nevada..................................................... 0.85

Am. Samoa.................................................. 0.27

Guam....................................................... 0.27

Marianas................................................... 0.27

 Region 10

Alaska..................................................... 1.22

Idaho...................................................... 1.24

Oregon..................................................... 1.39

Washington................................................. 1.92

------------------------------------------------------------------------
70

Appendix E—Guidance and Checklist for Determining Progress of State NPS Management 

Programs and Performance of CWA Section 319 Grants

Regions shall review the progress that each state is making in implementing its nonpoint source 

(NPS) management program and provide written documentation of this progress. Specifically, prior 

to approving funding recommendations for the award of section 319 funds, the Regions shall 

complete this checklist covering the prior section 319 grant or PPG reporting period. The checklist 

applies to all states that receive funds from section 319; however, Section 5 applies only to states that 

include these funds in Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs). Note that the Rate of Expenditure 

analysis in Section 4(B) is not required for section 319 funds incorporated into a PPG.

The checklist is designed to document the extent to which each state meets foundational aspects 

of program progress and CWA section 319 grant management requirements, including those 

specified in binding section 319 grant guidelines available at www.epa.gov/nps/319. These 

aspects should be assessed as a whole in making a determination, with each response constituting 

information, or a line of evidence, that will lead towards a decision based on the Region’s best 

professional judgment. Negative responses to a question may be supplemented with a justification or description of a corrective action underway or necessary. Yes-or-no questions should 

typically begin with “yes” or “no” responses (and sparingly with other responses such as “n/a”, 

“unknown”, or “somewhat”); additional succinct assessments or explanations are strongly encouraged, where helpful. With only one question in the checklist – question 1(A)(iv) – does a 

“no” response constitute a de facto finding of unsatisfactory progress, per CWA section 319(h)(8).

The final determination of progress of state NPS management programs is to be made by the 

Regional Administrator or delegated authority (e.g., water division director or program 

manager). The checklist for this determination should be completed by the appropriate regional 

NPS program staff (typically, the CWA section 319 Grant Project Officer for non-PPG awards 

and the CWA section 319 NPS Program Coordinator for states that include section 319 grant 

funds in a PPG). A transmittal letter or memo for each determination shall include a summary of 

any significant outstanding concerns and notice of corrective action plan, if needed. Each state 

NPS program manager shall receive a copy of this transmittal letter/memo and the completed 

checklist, with a copy to the state water division director. The completed checklist and 

transmittal letter/memo may be attached to the grant funding recommendation.

1. Meeting Statutory and Regulatory Requirements and Demonstrating Water Quality 

Results

A. Section 319(h)(8) requires EPA to determine if a state has made satisfactory progress in 

meeting a schedule of annual milestones to implement its NPS management program. 
Appendix E – Continued 

71

i) Does the state’s NPS management program include relevant, up-to-date and trackable 

annual milestones for program implementation?

ii) If the state does not yet include up-to-date annual milestones in its NPS management 

program, in what document(s) is this schedule located?

iii) Has the state reported its progress in the annual report required under CWA section 

319(h)(11) in meeting its milestone(s) for the preceding fiscal year?

iv) Has the state demonstrated satisfactory progress in meeting its schedule of 

milestone(s) for the preceding fiscal year? Briefly elaborate. (If no, in accordance 

with CWA section 319(h)(8), the 319 grant award for the coming year cannot be 

awarded.)

B. Section 319(h)(11) requires each state to report on an annual basis reductions in NPS 

pollutant loading and improvements in water quality.

i) For all active projects that have NPS reduction goals for nutrients or sediment, did the 

state report load reductions (WQ-9) into GRTS during the reporting period after the 

first year that practices were installed or implemented achieved?

ii) Has the state reported improvements in water quality that have occurred in the current 

reporting period resulting from implementation of its NPS management program 

and/or previous years’ section 319(h) grant work plans? (e.g., reporting on SP-12 or

other improvements such as shellfish bed and beach openings that have not yet led to 

attainment of water quality standards)?

iii) Did the state meet its annual commitment/target/goal (if any) under WQ-10 to remove 

impaired waters from the 303(d) list?

2. Overall GRTS Reporting

For this question, it is sufficient to report on the results of previously conducted post-award 

grants monitoring. No additional monitoring may be needed.

A. To ensure that the state meets the reporting requirements in section 319(h)(11), did the 

state enter all mandated data elements into GRTS (including geolocational tags where 

available) for all applicable projects in the previous section 319 grant award?

3. Focus on Watershed-Based Implementation

For this question, it is sufficient to document the results of previous findings, if this was 

determined during the Region’s reviews of the state’s active grant work plans.
Appendix E – Continued 

72

A. Is the state implementing nine-element watershed-based plans – or approved alternative 

plans - at required grant expenditure levels in accordance with EPA’s guidelines for 

CWA section 319(h) grants? That is, in fiscal year 2014 and subsequent years, was 50% 

of the state’s grant used to implement watershed based plans, unless the state provided 

state funding for watershed projects equal to its total section 319 allocation? If no, please 

explain.

4. Ensuring Fiscal Accountability

For this section, it is sufficient to briefly report on the results of previously conducted grants 

management and oversight required of all grants.

A. Tracking and Reporting. For all active section 319(h) grants, using existing post-award 

monitoring or best professional judgment:

i) Is the state’s RFP process efficient and timely for selecting and funding projects 

within the work plan timeframe?

ii) Did the State obligate all of the section 319(h) funds in the previous year’s award 

within one year per current section 319 grant guidelines?

B. Rate of Expenditures. For categorical grants, include and examine a summary of 

expenditures for all open section 319 grant awards listing the following: state; grant #; 

FY; project period; grant award amount; balance (unliquidated obligation); percent 

unliquidated obligation. See example below, which contains information readily available 

through Compass, EPA’s financial data warehouse. This information could also be 

obtained from other EPA tools such as GRTS or the Post Award Baseline Tracking Tool. 

Include a state total of grant award amount, balance and percent unliquidated obligation. 

Please reference the source and date of information used to answer the question below. 

(“SA” in column 1of the example below = State Abbreviation.)

Note: This analysis is not required for section 319 funds incorporated into a PPG. 

CWA Section 319(h) Funds, Rates of Expenditures (Unliquidated Obligations) 

Based on Compass Federal Data Warehouse Online on <PROVIDE DATE>

Grant # FY Project Period

Grant Award 

Amount Balance (ULO) % ULO

SA C9-97956808 08 07/01/08 - 06/30/13 $ 2,699,664 $ 89,089 3.3%

SA C9-97956809 09 07/01/09 - 06/30/14 $ 2,759,386 $ 482,893 17.5%

SA C9-97956810 10 07/01/10 - 06/30/15 $ 2,608,349 $ 957,264 36.7%

SA C9-97956811 11 07/01/11 - 06/30/16 $ 2,257,140 $ 938,970 41.6%

SA C9-97956812 12 07/01/12 - 06/30/17 $ 2,257,732 $ 1,763,289 78.1%

SA Total: $ 12,582,271 $ 4,231,505 33.6%
Appendix E – Continued 

73

i) Relying on best professional judgment, do the figures in the Rate of Expenditures 

chart substantially match the expected drawdown rates or the negotiated outlay 

strategy from the associated grant work plan schedules? If not, briefly explain.

5. PPG Considerations

For states that include section 319 funds in Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs), briefly 

report on the following.

A. Has the state followed the goals, objectives and measures of the national program 

guidelines and priorities in implementing its NPS program? If not, did the state negotiate 

with the EPA region a work plan that differs significantly from the National Program 

Manager (NPM) guidance? (If yes, the EPA Region was required to consult with the NPS 

NPM.) Please explain.

B. Using best professional judgment, has the state adequately documented progress 

consistent with its listed priorities?

6. Identifying and Addressing Performance Issues/Progress Concerns

A. Considering issues itemized on this checklist, briefly summarize any significant 

outstanding section 319 grant performance issues or progress concerns, including 

recommendation(s) for corrective action(s). For states with out-of-date NPS management 

programs or schedule of milestones, Regions are to ensure that forthcoming section 319 

grant awards are contingent on completing updates to these programs or milestones.

B. Are there other significant outstanding section 319 grant performance issues or progress 

concerns that were not identified through this checklist? If so, please describe, including 

any recommendation(s) for corrective action(s), as may be appropriate.
74

Appendix F-- Nationally Consistent Programmatic § 319 Grant Conditions

1) Reporting Requirements 

The recipient agrees to comply with all reporting requirements required by EPA regulation (40 

CFR parts 31 and 35), §§ 319(h)(10) and (11) of the Clean Water Act, and by the Nonpoint 

Source Program and Grants Guidelines for States and Territories. (2013) Failure to comply with 

the above referenced reporting requirements may result in a disruption of grantee funding and/or 

early termination of the grant agreement in accordance with 40 CFR part 31.43.

2) Project Reports

The recipient agrees to submit reports for all projects identified in the approved work plan, 

including those performed by the recipient, subgrantees, contractors, and through interagency 

agreements. Reports shall include a comparison of actual accomplishments to the 

outputs/outcomes established in the workplan for that period, the reasons for slippage if those 

outputs/outcomes could not be met, and any other pertinent information such as cost overruns. 

Reports are due [annually/semi-annually] on [insert date(s)] each year until the grant is closed. 

Reports can be submitted in GRTS. In accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 31.40 (d), the recipient 

agrees to inform EPA as soon as problems, delays or adverse conditions arise which will 

materially impair the ability to meet the outputs/outcomes specified in the assistance agreement 

work plan.

A final project report is due to the EPA project officer within 90 days after the end of the 

Assistance Agreement Project Period. The report must describe project activities and identify 

and discuss the extent to which project goals have been achieved, and the amount of funds spent 

on the project. The report should emphasize successes, failures, lessons learned, load reduction 

data, and should include any available water quality and habitat data demonstrating project 

results. Acceptance and approval of final project reports is the responsibility of the recipient. 

Final project reports will be provided electronically as attachments in GRTS, and submitted in 

hard copy if required. In addition, the GRTS database should be updated to reflect the project 

status as complete.

3) Annual Nonpoint Source (NPS) Program Report: 

The recipient agrees to provide information required under § 319(h)(11) of the Clean Water Act 

for the purpose of annual reporting on progress under the State's NPS management program. The 

§ 319 Annual Program Report will be due by [insert date]. At a minimum, the report shall 

contain a summary of progress, including rationale/evidence, in meeting the schedule of 

milestones in the approved management program and reductions in NPS pollutant loading and 

improvements in water quality that has resulted from implementation of the NPS management 

program. Failure to submit the annual NPS program report may affect the recipient's eligibility 

for future § 319 grant funding.

4) GRTS:

The recipient shall enter all mandated data elements into the Grants Reporting and Tracking 

System (GRTS) for NPS projects funded under § 319 of the Clean Water Act, according to 

deadlines specified by EPA [insert date if desired]. 
Appendix F – Continued 

75

Initial data entry is due 90 days from award and includes all mandated data elements except the 

geographic area (if still to be determined), best management practices (BMPs) and load reduction 

data. The recipient will report BMP and load reduction data as projects are implemented. At a 

minimum, the BMP and load reduction data will be reported by February 15th of each year for 

projects implementing BMPs in the previous fiscal year. 

5) Quality Assurance18

The recipient agrees to continue to implement and adhere to its EPA-approved Quality 

Management Pan (QMP) in accordance with EPA QA/R-2, EPA Requirements for Quality 

Management Plans. If not included under the approved QMP, a stand-alone QAPP is required for 

those projects/activities that result in the collection and/or generation of environmental 

information, metrics or data. The recipient agrees to ensure that an approved site specific QAPP 

is completed for each project. The QAPPs will be reviewed and approved by the Recipient prior 

to the reimbursement for collection of any environmental information or data. A copy of the 

approved QAPPs must be retained with the recipient’s official records for this Agreement.

6) STORET Data Reporting

The recipient agrees to enter water quality monitoring data, for data collected in a waterbody 

pursuant to the implementation of a § 319 project, into EPA's “storage and retrieval” (STORET) 

data system. All water quality data generated with § 319 funding, either directly or by sub-award, 

are required to be transmitted into the STORET data warehouse using either the Water Quality 

Exchange (WQX) or WQXweb.

7) Sufficient Progress

EPA may terminate the assistance agreement for failure of the recipient to make sufficient 

progress so as to reasonably ensure completion of the project within the project period, including 

any extensions. EPA will measure sufficient progress by examining the performance required 

under the workplan in conjunction with the milestone schedule, the time remaining for 

performance within the project period, and/or the availability of funds necessary to complete the 

project. In determining sufficient progress, EPA may also consider the rate of expenditure of 

funds (unliquidated obligations), as well as the findings from the most recent § 319 performance 

and progress determination. (See EPA’s Guidance and Checklist for Determining Progress of 

State NPS Management Programs and Performance of CWA Section 319 Grants.)

8) Watershed-based Plans

Under the § 319 guidelines, use of § 319 “watershed project” funds requires that a watershedbased plan which includes all of the information in elements (a)-(i) as described in the § 319 

grant guidelines, or an acceptable alternative plan be completed prior to implementation of onthe-ground projects. The recipient shall ensure a watershed-based plan or acceptable alternative 

plan is completed prior to beginning to implement any on-the-ground project with § 319

watershed project funds.

 

18 Regions may substitute this condition with a state-specific grant condition on quality assurance.
Appendix F – Continued 

76

Upon request by EPA, the recipient shall provide a copy of any watershed-based plan or 

acceptable alternative plan funded under § 319 as well as any available information regarding the 

status of implementation activities and results, including but not limited to any reports on BMP's 

implemented; § 319 funds expended; contributions of funds by other sources to assist in 

implementation of the watershed-based plans (to the extent this information is readily available 

to the State); results achieved; and other relevant and appropriate information.

9) Operation and Maintenance

The recipient will assure the continued proper operation and maintenance of all nonpoint source 

management practices that have been implemented for projects funded under this agreement. 

Such practices shall be operated and maintained for the expected lifespan of the specific practice 

and in accordance with commonly accepted standards. The recipient shall include a provision in 

every applicable sub-agreement (subgrant or contract) awarded under this grant requiring that the 

management practices for the project be properly operated and maintained. Likewise, the subagreement will assure that similar provisions are included in any sub-agreements that are 

awarded by the sub-recipient.

10) Maintenance of Effort/ Required Non-Federal Match

State expenditures for NPS implementation activities must meet the maintenance of effort 

(MOE) level required under § 319(h)(9) of the Clean Water Act. A 40% non-federal program 

match is also required. The state should assure that the MOE and match requirements have been 

satisfied and report this through the final Federal Financial Report (FFR) at the end of the budget 

period.

11) Limitation on Administrative Costs

In accordance with § 319(h)(12) of the Clean Water Act, administrative costs in the form of 

salaries, overhead, or indirect costs shall not exceed in any fiscal year 10 percent of the amount 

of the grant except that costs of implementing enforcement and regulatory activities, education, 

training, technical assistance, demonstration projects, and technology transfer programs shall not 

be subject to this limitation. 

12) Obligation and Outlay of Funds

In accordance with § 319(h)(6) of the Clean Water Act, the recipient will show commitment to 

expend the funds awarded in this grant and to complete the funded projects in accordance with 

its EPA approved Nonpoint Source management program and the approved work plan. The 

recipient will award all proposed contracts, subgrants and interagency agreements within one 

year after grant award.

13) Food and Refreshments

Unless the event(s) and all of its components (i.e., receptions, banquets and other activities that 

take place after normal business hours) are described in the approved workplan, the recipient 

agrees to obtain prior approval from EPA for the use of grant funds for light refreshments and/or 

meals served at meetings, conferences, training workshops, and outreach activities (events). 

The recipient must send requests for approval to the EPA Project Officer and include:

I. An estimated budget and description for the light refreshments, meals, and/or beverages 

to be served at the event(s);
Appendix F – Continued 

77

II. A description of the purpose, agenda, location, length and timing for the event.

III. An estimated number of participants in the event and a description of their roles.

Recipients may address questions about whether costs for light refreshments, and meals for 

events are allowable to the recipient’s EPA project officer. However, the Agency Award Official 

or Grant Management Officer will make final determinations on allowability. Agency policy 

prohibits the use of EPA funds for receptions, banquets and similar activities that take place after 

normal business hours unless the recipient has provided a justification that has been expressly 

approved by EPA's Award Official or Grants Management Officer. 

Note: U.S. General Services Administration regulations define light refreshments for morning, 

afternoon or evening breaks to include, but not be limited to, coffee, tea, milk, juice, soft drinks, 

donuts, bagels, fruit, pretzels, cookies, chips, or muffins. (41 CFR 301-74.11)

14) Permits

The recipient agrees to ensure that all necessary permits (such as Clean Water Act § 404) are 

obtained prior to implementation of any grant funded activity that may fall under applicable 

federal, state or local laws. The subgrantee’s project implementation plan must identify permits 

that may be needed to complete work plan activities. The recipient must keep documentation 

regarding necessary permits in the project file. EPA approval of a workplan does not imply nor

guarantee that a federal, state, or local permit will be issued for a particular activity. 

15) Participation in Regional and National Meetings

The recipient agrees to attend annual NPS Manager's meetings and GRTS users meeting, as

scheduled, unless agreed upon in advance by the EPA Project Officer. 

16) NPS Success Stories

The recipient must draft and submit to EPA all applicable NPS Program Success Stories which 

highlight projects resulting in the restoration of waterbodies.

17) Substantial Involvement condition

[if a cooperative agreement (only if applicable):]

Substantial Federal involvement with the recipient is anticipated during the performance of the 

cooperative agreement. This Federal involvement may include:

1. Monitoring by EPA of the recipient's performance.

2. Consultation and collaboration on technical matters that will help the recipient carry 

out the agreement effectively.

3. EPA's prior review and approval of project phases if developed and the substantive 

terms of the proposed subawards the recipient enters into to carry out specific elements of 

the scope of work.

18) TMDLs Developed Under Section 319 Grant

For each § 319-funded TMDL, the recipient will provide the following supplemental information

to support the load allocations specified in the TMDL: (1) an identification of total NPS existing 

loads and total NPS load reductions necessary to meet water quality standards, by source type; 
Appendix F – Continued 

78

(2) a detailed identification of the causes and sources of NPS pollution by source type to be 

addressed in order to achieve the load reductions specified in the TMDL (e.g., acres of various 

row crops, number and size of animal feedlots, acres and density of residential areas); and (3) an 

analysis of the NPS management measures by source type expected to be implemented to 

achieve the necessary load reductions, with the recognition that adaptive management may be 

necessary during implementation.